338 SHOREEDR: 
tantly removed from Aphriza, if we may be allowed to judge 
from osteological premises. 
There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that had such a 
form as Charadrius squatarola been the sole representative of 
the Charadritde in the entire world’s avifauna, and been found 
taking the place, the habitat, of Aphriza, modern systematists 
of the class would surely have grouped it with the Turnstones 
as forming a family APHRizID&. We must believe that the 
fashion is far too prevalent, that when an isolated form like 
Aphriza is met with, to lay about and endeavor to hit upon a 
family, a corner, where best to stow it away, without creating, 
as in the majority of cases should be done, a separate family 
fOnae: 
Now Aphriza is no more nearly related to Avexarza than is 
Charadrius related to Arenaria, and as at present classified by 
American Ornithologists, by no means indicates its true posi- 
tion in the system. I would propose then, in view of the ana- 
tomical facts brought out in the present memoir, that the family 
APHRIZIDA be made to contain the sole representative of it, 
Aphriza virgata ; and that another family, the ARENARIDA, be 
created to contain the Turnstones. 
It would seem that Aphriza in some way connects the Plovers 
with such 7yzzge@ as may possess the hallax and a four-notched 
sternum ; while Avexaria links the Plovers with Hematopus, 
albeit that the Turnstone is much nearer the Plover than the 
far more remotely affined Oyster-catcher would in any way 
appear to be. 
