124 Mathews, The Admission of Colour-Genera. [^ 



Emu 

 ^t Oct. 



emphasizing the near phylogenetic relationships of groups of 

 genera. That any real progress in this direction is retarded or 

 rendered practically impossible is due to the fact that at present 

 it is only on very rare occasions, and quite sporadically, that we 

 find nestlings or immature examples of species represented in our 

 collections. Finally, if colour-pattern is going to be applied as 

 a generic factor on anything like a large scale, it will, I am afraid, 

 be found necessary to create many more genera or sub-genera 

 than exist now. But why not, if and so long as these genera 

 or sub-genera were found to be natural groups, corresponding, as 

 I have found in many instances they do, with faunal areas or 

 geographical regions or sub-regions ; and if and so long as such 

 sub-genera or genera are integrated into large natural groups, 

 genetic phyla, or whatever term is employed, so that we may be 

 aware of their natural relationships ? These minor groups of 

 birds are not like stamps, which are to be arranged methodically 

 in an album. We have not finished with them when we have 

 cleverly elaborated a system which ensures that we shall know 

 exactly where to find them in the cabinets of a museum. On the 

 contrary, they are natural groups of organic creations, with in- 

 dependent or particular areas of distribution, and doubtless with 

 independent ecological life-stories." 



been constructed in order to simplify and codify our general concept of any 

 particular famih' of birds. Unfortunately, unless we simultaneously employ 

 some method of integrating minor generic groups into larger and naturally 

 constructed super-generic phyla, there seems to be a danger that, in the 

 multiplication of genera which is now going on, our concept will be — not 

 simplified, but complicated and obscured. For all practical purposes, we 

 shall, in fact, have arrived l:)y a laborious and painstaking process at the 

 exact position from which we originally set forth. We shall indeed have 

 been perambulating a circle ; for we have only got to imagine the process 

 of genera-splitting carried a few more steps further on and we shall have 

 arrived at such a pass that all genera will have become monotypic. This 

 may seem to be an exaggerated picture of the position, but if colour-pattern 

 is really and truthfully ignored in generic classification — as systematists 

 assure us — a flood of monotypic * and quite artificial genera is not an 

 unlikely eventuality, so fine are the distinctions now drawn between trivial 

 variations in the structure of the bill and other organs. If, on the other 

 hand, colour-pattern is not ignored, genera-splitting is far less likely- to do 

 harm, and indeed is likely to be productive of much good, for we shall have 

 g;ot down to small groups of natural and genetically related species. These 

 minor generic groups would, in fact, in most cases be found to consist of 

 analytical varieties grouped around some central or dominant specific type. 

 They would be really natural units which, when integrated with others into 

 larger and still natural groups (super-genera or what not), would express 

 at a glance the phylogenetic natural relationships of the particular family 

 or sub-family we were dealing with. My point, therefore, is that, while 

 disintegrating within justifiable and natural limits, we should at the same 

 time integrate on the above lines. Take, for example, the Redshank 

 association again. In this group, so variable are the structural features 

 of the bill and other anatomical features, that almost every species could 

 conceivably be made the type of a distinct genus ; and the same might be 

 said of the Dunlin association. Colour-pattern saves the situation. "■!■ 



* At least three-quarters of Mr. Mathews' genera of Australian birds are at present vwnotyi U. 

 —Eds. 



t Mr. Mathews' 1913 list shows 50 species of the Wader order, divided into 46 genera Forty-two 

 of these contain one Australian species each, and four contain two species each. The B O.U. list 

 i 64 species in 31 genera. Dr. Lowe's numbers are, unfortunately, not available here. — Eds. 



