of the Radiated Fruit-Cuckoo. 207 



different from that of Eudynaniis* , with which I shall first 

 of all compare it, afterwards indicating some points of 

 likeness and unlikeness to other genera of Cuckoos. The 

 anterior region of the skull is almost exactly the same 

 length as the cranial, and a marked hinge-line divides the 

 two ; in Eudynamis the beak is relatively (as well as, 

 of course_, absolutely) shorter, and there is no hinge-line. 

 On a dorsal view the skull of Carpococcyx is much less 

 excavated in the region of the orbits, and the lacrymals 

 do not project so much outwards ; the upper surface of the 

 skull has thus an almost regularly oval contour, more so 

 than in any Cuckoo which I have had the opportunity of 

 examining ; the nearest approach to it is shown by 

 Pyrrhocentor (fig. 24, p. 210), to which bird Carpococcyx is 

 evidently closely allied. 



The ventral aspect of the skull of Carpococcyx differs in 

 several respects from that of Eudynamis. In the first place, 

 the foramen magnum is more decidedly ventral in position, 

 a difference which may be correlated with the ground- 

 frequenting habits of Carpococcyx and the corresponding and 

 different position of the head. I have already pointed out 

 that Eudynamis has traces of basipterygoid processes f. I 

 did not, however, mention that, apparently in correspondence 

 with these, the pterygoids are bowed inwards, and that each 

 possesses a slightly projecting ridge, which may be looked 

 upon, perhaps, as the rudiment of the pterygoid facet. In 

 Carpococcyx the pterygoids are straight, and there are no 

 traces of basipterygoid processes. 



* I select Eudynamis as the type of comparison, since it is, I believe, 

 nearer to the root-stem of the Cuculidte than any other existing genus. 

 I mainly compare Carpococcyx with other genera of the Phoenicophainae 

 for the same reason. The skeleton of the Cuculidae does not, indeed, 

 appear to me to offer many facts of structure which can he used for 

 classiticatory purposes. The utmost that can be said is, I think, that the 

 osteology of the group does not stand in contradiction to the scheme of 

 classification whicli appears to me to be the right one. I cannot extract 

 any facts which oppose themselves to, or, on the other hand, support, a 

 division of the CuculidtB into the three subfamilies Cuculinae, Phcenico- 

 phainse, and Centropodinae. 



t P. Z. S. 1898, p. 48, footnote. 



