FAMILY OXYRUNCIDAE 60I 



a branch or from a hanging vine, often over water, without any 

 attempt at concealment, or may hang pendant against or beneath a 

 bank undercut by water action. The central structure is a mass of 

 fine rootlets and vines, often mingled with leaves and slender twigs, 

 expanded in globular form, and attached firmly to the supporting root 

 or stem. Externally usually it is covered with mossy vegetable 

 materials. A rounded hole at the lower side opens into the hidden 

 nest cavity, a fairly deep cup, more or less arched above. A nest 

 collected by S. Olson and J. Wiese in the Canal Zone near Summit, 

 May 10, 1966, is approximately 250 mm long by 120 mm wide at the 

 broadest part. Another, from these same collectors, from near 

 Gamboa, May 26, 1966, is about 350 mm long by 130 mm wide. 

 The eggs usually number three in a set. Those from the nest of 

 May 10, 1966, described above, are slightly pointed subelliptical in 

 form, and measure as follows : 18.7 X 13.7, 19.0 X 13.6, 19.0 X 13.8 mm. 

 Another set of three, collected by Major-General G. Ralph Meyer, 

 on the Madden Road, Canal Zone, March 18, 1941, similar in color, 

 lack of gloss, and form, measures 17.8x12.9, 18.1x13.2, and 

 18.3x13.4 mm. General Meyer's notes list two other nests found 

 in the Forest Reserve, Canal Zone, May 24, 1941, in which the 

 eggs were too far advanced in incubation to be preserved. 



Family OXYRUNCIDAE: Sharpbills, Picos Agudos 



The single species of this peculiar group has a broken range in 

 which it is found in Costa Rica ; Veraguas, western Panama ; Darien ; 

 eastern Venezuela ; Guyana ; and Brazil. Two subspecies are recog- 

 nized in Panama, one in Veraguas and one in eastern Darien. 



In brief review, the sharpbill was diagnosed technically first by 

 Temminck (Anal. Syst. Gen. Orn., Man. d'Orn., ed. 2, vol. 1, 

 p. Ixxx) as the genus Oxyruncus, placed in his Order VI, Aniso- 

 dactyli. Bonaparte (Consp. Gen. Av., vol. 1, 1850, p. 211) included 

 it in the family "Anabatidae," as did Cabanis (Mus. Hein., vol. 1, 

 pt. 2, 1859, p. 31). Sclater and Salvin (Exot. Orn., 1868, pp. 131- 

 132) remarked that while they agreed in part with Cabanis they did 

 not follow in regarding it "as a genus of Anabatidae, or, as we 

 prefer to call them, Dendrocolaptidae. It would seem more natural to 

 consider it as constituting a sub-family, if not a family." In their 

 later account (Biol. Centr.-Amer., vol. 2, 1888, p. 1) they located 

 it in a monotypic family, which has been the usual treatment since. 

 Its actual relationship to other groups has remained uncertain since 

 information on its anatomy is not yet known in detail. 



