^"'loi^^'l Mathkws, T/ic Admission uf Colour-Genera. IIQ 



made ^()()(1 his cause by pointin;^ out that cok)ui"-i)attei"n was the 

 basis ot his theme, and not mere coloration. It turned out 

 afterward that those who had intended to oppose him had not 

 studied the subject, but were merely going to cite cases of 

 abnormal coloration as a reason for the rejection of colour as a 

 generic differential character. I would explain here that colour- 

 pattern, as opposed to mere coloration, can best be understood 

 by the citation of an example, and that Dr. Lowe at once did by 

 making use of the Ringed Plovers. It is interesting to see that 

 Dr. Lowe selected as his most prominent example the group I 

 studied and commented on in my " Birds of Austraha." It is 

 still more pleasing to have to record that, from an independent 

 study of this group, Dr. Lowe practically confirmed all my results. 

 I studied this group from the external features of the bird's skin 

 — viz., bill, coloration, legs and feet stmcture, and egg- 

 coloration, using all these features in conjunction. Dr. Lowe 

 attacked them from coloration, colour-pattern, and colour of 

 juvenile from nestling to adult. He showed that the coloration 

 of this group practically varied very little, whether the birds lived 

 in the Arctic or sub-Arctic or in Austral or Neozelandic climes. 

 The coloration of nestlings varied only in shade, the pattern 

 showing practically no change. The young were very similar, 

 and throughout all the species a constant style of coloration 

 was observed. As a special example of how strongly this 

 coloration was marked, Dr. Lowe cited the following : — " One of 

 them [practical uses of nesthng coloration, &c.] was the nestUng 

 of Elseyornis melanops, of Australia. In almost all works this 

 form was always included at the end of the Hst of species belonging 

 to the Ringed Plover group {Mgialitis). The nestling specimen 

 exhibited undoubtedly proved, once and for all, that if melanops 

 was indeed a Ringed Plover, it was a very aberrant form, and one 

 which fully deserved the generic distinction that had been 

 bestowed upon it." 



I would emphasize that Dr. Lowe's results were achieved quite 

 independently of my own, and hence the great value of such a 

 confirmation. Dr. Lowe then showed some nestling Ducks, 

 indicating that Glauciitm and Nyroca were abundantly distinct, 

 though they had been lumped by Messrs. Hartert, Witherby, 

 Jourdain, and Ticehurst in their recent " Hand-list of British 

 Birds."* This action in displaying the evidence before the Club 

 has had its effect, and the above-mentioned authors now accept 

 the separation of these two genera. If all the evidence in favour 



* Dr. Lowe said : — " .... demonstrating to you how inipo.ssible 

 it would seem to unite Glauciou and Nyroca under one genus, as has been 

 recently done, or, on the other hand, to include the Ruddy Sheld-Duck in 

 a genus {Casarca) distinct from Tadorna. since the colour-pattern character- 

 istic of the nestling plumage of the Ruddy Sheld-Duck is identical with that 

 of the Common Sheld-Duck." Mr. Mathews not only recognized Casarca 

 and Tadorna, but he divided Radjah from Tadorna (" Birds of .Australia," 

 vol. iv., p. 7^), tlins making three genera where Dr. Lowe would make one. 

 —Eds. 



