12 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. I39 



this with Mesoenas Reichenbach 1862, since the conflict had been noted 

 seven years earlier by Prince Bonaparte who gave the group the name 

 Mesitornis (Bonaparte, 1855, p. 484). The suborder becomes Mesi- 

 tornithides and the family Mesitornithidae. 



In the course of study of the fossil Andrewsornis abbotti from the 

 Oligocene of Patagonia, Bryan Patterson (1941, pp. 50-53) has re- 

 viewed related groups to the end that he has added the family 

 Psilopteridae for the South American fossil genera Psilopterus and 

 Smiliornis. Further, he has placed Phororhacos and its allies as a 

 superfamily Phororhacoidea under the suborder Cariamae. His 

 further observations on these matters are to appear later in a more 

 comprehensive paper. 



The family Cunampaiidae, for the fossil Cunampaia simplex, named 

 by Rusconi (1946, p. 1) from the Oligocene of western Argentina, 

 while placed in the Cariamae, still remains of uncertain status. 



The allocation of the phororhacid group to its new position and 

 its demotion from subordinal status requires recognition of a super- 

 family Cariamoidea for the living Cariamidae and the fossil group 

 Hermosiornithidae. The common name for the Cariamidae in most 

 English writings has been "Cariama," being the form instituted by 

 Marcgrave in 1648 in his Historiae rerum naturalium Brasiliae, when 

 he rendered the Tupi name "cariama" as cariama. This was copied by 

 subsequent authors, including Linnaeus in his twelfth edition, and so 

 came finally into English usage, beginning with Ray's translation of 

 Willughby's Ornithologiae in 1678. Seriema, a modification of the 

 Indian word cariama, is used in Brazil, and with that spelling has 

 come into the Engish language, where it should replace the other form. 



Charadriiformes. — Differences of treatment at present are found 

 mainly in the superfamily Charadrioidea and the suborder Lari, in 

 which the groups have been regarded by some as of family value 

 and by others have been allocated to the rank of subfamilies. The var- 

 ious studies that have been made have not been complete from a 

 taxonomic point of view except for part of the species, and the con- 

 clusions derived from the data available appear in the main more 

 philosophical than concrete. The picture therefore still remains 

 confused. 



In view of the diverse specializations that are apparent, and the 

 obvious long evolutionary history, it appears better to me to continue 

 to acknowledge the main segregations as families, at least until the 

 subjects involved have been more thoroughly investigated. A family, 

 Rhegminornithidae, covers the fossil Rhegminomis calobates Wet- 

 more, described from the lower Miocene of Florida. This was as 



