Mr. V. L. Sclater on Wallace's Standard-iving. 27 



Gould, however, in the ' Supplement to the Birds of Australia/ 

 states his opinion that it is " not a Bird of Paradise, if we regard 

 Paradisea apoda and P. papuana as typical examples of that 

 group, but very closely allied to Ptilurhis, — so nearly so, indeed, 

 as scarcely to be separable from that form." Now, I am not so 

 fortunate as to be able to agree entirely with either of these 

 authorities, considering, as I do, that the present bird is some- 

 what intermediate in its characters between Cicinnurus and 

 Ptilorhis, and that it is more nearly allied to both of these forms 

 than to the true PaiHidisea, though I think it probable that all 

 three genera really belong to the same natural family. In the 

 narrow and elongated form of the nostrils, and their conceal- 

 ment by short, stiff, upstanding frontal plumes which advance 

 far beyond the openings, Semioptera agrees more closely with 

 Cicinnurus. In Ptilorhis the nostrils are barely covered by the 

 frontal feathers. In Paradisea the nasal opening is rounded, and 

 quite uncovered in front. Again, the acrutarsia of Semioptera, 

 which consist of one smooth undivided scute, are very different 

 from those of Ptilorhis, which are divided into five or six scutes ; 

 and they more nearly resemble those of Cicinnurus. The legs 

 are also much stronger, thicker, and longer than in Ptilorhis, 

 and in this respect are more like those of Paradisea. The 

 wing-feathers of the new form are not so much broadened as in 

 Ptilorhis, nor are the secondaries so much elongated; but ii: 

 these respects ii is equally unlike Cicinnu?'us. The general con- 

 formation of the wings of the three species is not essentially 

 different. It may not be out of place to give comparative 

 measurements of these three birds. 



Long. tota. Alae. Caudse. Tarsi. • . 



Semioptera wallacii 10*5 5"8 2*7 1"6 \'7 



Ptilorhis paradisea 12*0 61 3*8 1"3 2'1 



Cicinnurus regius . 6"5 4*5 1'6 1"1 1*2 



On the whole, therefore, it will be reasonable to consider 

 Semioptera as a vei-y distinct genus; and I must be allowed to 

 express some svu'prise that JVIr. Gould should have spoken of it as 

 " scarcely se])arable " from Ptilorhis. The two very shigularly 

 elongated feathers which spring from the base of the upper 



