l6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. I39 



and the greater curvature of the shaft and reduction of the crista 

 superior of the humerus. I have not seen the skull. The habit of life 

 is markedly different. Although anatomical material of the other 

 genera is not presently available, it seems reasonable to accept Strese- 

 mann's proposal. These peculiar birds certainly are not closely allied 

 to Leptosoma. 



Lack of information on the anatomy of the woodhoopoes must be 

 the reason for recent nonrecognition of the Phoeniculidae as a family 

 separate from the Upupidae, since the two are quite distinct and 

 have been so recognized for many years. The external differences 

 are readily apparent. In the skeleton in Phoeniculus (of which I have 

 seen several examples) the posterior part of the nasal area is ossified, 

 there being only a small, narrow, elongated nasal opening ; the ecteth- 

 moid is much reduced ; the anterior end of the pterygoid is broadly 

 expanded ; the sphenoidal rostrum is swollen at the anterior end, where 

 the expanded ends of the pterygoids join it; the quadrates are de- 

 cidedly larger; the keel of the sternum is greatly reduced, being only 

 half as high as in U pupa; the furculum is broader ; the pelvis is nar- 

 rowed, and considerably enlongated posterior to the acetabulum, with 

 the ischio-pubic fenestra greatly enlarged ; and the tarsus is heavier 

 and broader, with two definite fenestra below the head. There are 

 other minor details. In all of the above the characters of Upupa are 

 directly opposite. The two groups appear to me to be sharply set off 

 as distinct families. 



Passeriformes. — This order, with more living species than all the 

 others combined, and far fewer fossil forms known, presents many 

 difficult problems in logical arrangement. The major groups are clear, 

 whether we rank them as suborders or superfamilies being a matter 

 of opinion. But the limits and status of numerous families contained 

 in these larger categories are uncertain since the internal anatomy is 

 known for so few kinds that details of difference are poorly under- 

 stood. Superficial resemblances, on the other hand, are so obvious in 

 many cases that they cause confusion. Under the circumstances it 

 continues to seem appropriate to me to accept the family grouping 

 that has been current for many years, except in those cases where 

 acceptable studies clearly indicate change. Supposition in these matters 

 has led to various proposals for changes, some part of which un- 

 doubtedly will prove correct. It is equally probable that a part, 

 possibly the considerably larger part, may prove to be unfounded when 

 details are more clearly known. If change is accepted under these cir- 

 cumstances it may prove unwarranted, necessitating further shift, 

 perhaps a return to the original status. Since this can only prove 



