'^°il3^"-] R( )BB:RTS. nirds of the Granite Belt 297 



above, we would suggest that a separate species is justified, a 

 contingency provided for by Mathews in these words (B. of A., 

 ix., p. 434, re Pusilla) : "We see here the process of the formation 

 of species, and that in more generations we should have three 

 or four distinct representative species .... whereas now 

 the definition is indistinct." v'^o it seems to us that as the bac- 

 teriologist by looking through a microsc(jpe at organisms would 

 not classify on this alone, but would turn to culture methods, su 

 the cabinet ornithologist should not, without equivalent cultural 

 details, but simply on appearance, dogmatise as to species and 

 sub-species. 



We admit we have no theory to offer as regard Chrysorrhous 

 in connection with the evolution of the nest. Does she stoop to 

 concpier? Is it because it is a puzzle to the cuckoo that it is an 

 enigma to the human ? But we record this one case. .\ pair 

 built in the garden out of reach of the small boy; suddenly the 

 birds deserted, after sitting for a time, and built close by. This 

 first nest was examined, and found to contain a Cuckoo's egg 

 in addition to the clutch of Tit's eggs. But woven into the 

 upper nest and in full view was a mummified Spotted-sided Finch. 

 It is not suggested that it was actually used as anything more 

 than a mass of feathers, nor do we insist on forcing some sig- 

 nificance from all that comes before us. It is simply recorded 

 as a sign at most of the mentality of the bird, a further proof of 

 which is its adoption of human beings wherever opportunit} 

 ofifers. 



In approaching the subject of external features two points 

 have to be borne in mind : First, that, as a zoological class, birds 

 with thirty orders roughly, do not in the aggregate muster as 

 much diversity as many a single order of Amphibia, Fishes, or 

 Reptiles, and second, as a corollary, that almost microscopic at- 

 tention has been paid to macroscopic features in dividing the 

 ^ arious orders into genera. In fact, any recognisable modification 

 in beak, wing or leg has certainly been thought to warrant, at 

 least, generic differentiation. 



All the species here treated have bristles surrounding the mouth 

 to guide the erring insect into the right path ; as would be ex- 

 ])ected, the ground-feeding species have these less developed 

 than those which pursue insects amongst the leaves and twigs. 



The shape of the beak itself is governed chiefly by two factors: 

 the use to which it is put and the necessity for a minimum space 

 to house the nostrils. If the bird requires a stout beak, as in 

 Brei'irostris, there is no necessity for the provision of .special 

 space for the nostrils : it is already there. If on the other hand 

 the bird requires a sharp beak, as in the .Icanthizae, a basal ex- 

 pansion is required for the nostrils. At times it is necessary that 

 the heavy beak should have a sharp point: a typical case is the 

 Parrot, and it is obtained by inserting a notch a little way from 

 the tip. Exactly the same occurs in Albogularis. even to the 



