Vol. XV. -| M,\THK\vs, The Admission of Colour-Genera. 123 



of colour-pattern. I will deal with this under my example 

 Pachycephala . 



(). The correlation of coloiir-pattern with other generic characters. 



Dr. Lowe stated that this was self-evident from an examination 

 of any group, and I would endorse this. 



7. Colour -pattern as a phylogenetic clue. 



Dr. Lowe here showed a diagram of an attempt tcj indicate the 

 phylogenetic relationships of the whole group of Waders.* This 

 diagram was based upon a study of the nestlings, using colour- 

 ])attern, as shown by those, as a main feature, and proved con- 

 clusively that study of the nestling absolutely disposed of many 

 debatable points in former classifications when such were not 

 made use of. Dr. Lowe made the following most interesting 

 announcement : — " In attempting to construct this ' family tree,' 

 which purports to dejnct the phylogenetic relationships of the 

 whole sub-order of Waders, a study of the osteological characters 

 of this group has been carried on simultaneously with a study of 

 the nestling young (not to mention other aids to classification), 

 the result being that these two aids to the whole question of 

 phylogeny have illuminated one another in the most interesting 

 way." I now await the publication of his essay, which will be 

 the most complete on these birds yet made, and I believe, from 

 conversations with Dr. Lowe, that my conclusions in the " Birds 

 of Australia," which emanated from the study of Austral forms 

 only, will be mainly upheld by a complete monographic study 

 of the whole group. 



8. The relationship of colour- pattern to the question of genera- 

 splitting or genera-lumping. 



Under this heading Dr. Lowe initiated a movement quite novel 

 to British ornithologists, but which I have indicated as being the 

 next to be approached— viz., the usage of '' super-genera." His 

 remarks very nearly coincide with my actions, and I hope to 

 utilize super-genera in the future when nestlings and series are 

 available to indicate such correctly. My example of Pachycephala 

 will show why the proposal of super-genera must be withheld for 

 a while yet. 



Dr. Lowe's remarks are worthy of reproduction i>i toto,-\ but I 

 must content myself with his concluding sentences : — 



" The obvious or logical conclusion, therefore, is that we ought 

 more often to make use of super-genera by way of expressing or 



* Unfortunately, Dr. Lowe's valuable and interesting article in The Ibis 

 does not contain the diagrams or any summary of his results. — Eds. 



t The following passages regarding " monotypic " genera are especially 

 worthy of consideration :— " As things are now, in by far the larger number 

 of cases, genera are purely artificial, arbitrary, and non-natural { groups 

 which have been constructed for our convenience. They have, in fact, 

 X In the discussion whicli followed the reading of this paper, much was made of the idea that 

 genera were non-natural, man-made, and purely convenient groups. If. however, the units 

 (.species) of which genera are composed are natural, nature-made units, surely groups comprised 

 of such units ought to be natural if only such units are properly assorted. If genera are not natural 

 (and there is no question that many of them are not), that is the fault of those who created them— 

 not Nature's. Personally I believe in groups of species which are generally allied— that is to say, I 

 believe that Mr. Iredale struck the right note when he s.aid that genera were or ought to be as 

 natural as species. (.Author's footnote.) 



