FLORICAN—FLYCATCHER 273 
FLORICAN or FLORIKEN,! the Anglo-Indian name for the 
smaller BuSTARDS, the origin of which neither Jerdon (B. Ind. ii. 
p. 625) nor Yule (Hobson Jobson, p. 270) can trace. The latter 
shews that it was used in 1780 (Munro, Narrative, p. 199), and 
says “it looks like Dutch”; but from analogy a Portuguese deriva- 
tion would seem more likely. 
FLOWER-PECKER, the name given by Indian ornithologists 
to species of the genus Dic@uM and others supposed to be allied to 
it (cf. Jerdon, B. Ind. i. pp. 373-378; Oates, Fauna Br. Ind. Birds, 
ii. pp. 376-386). 
FLUSHER, said by Ray in 1674 (Coll. Engl. Words, p. 83) to 
be a name given in Yorkshire to the BUTCHER-BIRD or Red-backed 
SHRIKE; but he probably should have written ‘“ Flesher ”—that 
being a common North-country word for butcher. 
FLYCATCHER, a name introduced in ornithology by Ray, 
being a translation of the Muscicapa of older authors, and applied 
by Pennant to an extremely common English bird, the M. grisola of 
Linneus. It has since been used in a general and very vague way 
for a great many small birds from all parts of the world, which 
have the habit of catching flies on the wing, and thus ornithologists 
who have trusted too much to this characteristic and to certain 
merely superficial correlations of structure, especially those exhibited 
by a broad and rather flat bill and a gape beset by strong hairs or 
bristles, have associated under the title of Muscicapide an exceed- 
ingly heterogeneous assemblage of forms that, though much reduced 
in number by later systematists, has scarcely yet been sufficiently 
revised. Great advance has been made, however, in establishing 
as independent Families the Zodidw (Topy) and Eurylemidx 
(BROADBILL), as well as in excluding from it various members 
of the Cotingidx (CHATTERER), Tyrannidx, Vireonidx, Mniotiltidx 
(American WARBLER), and perhaps others, which had been placed 
within its limits. These steps have left the Muscicapide a purely 
Old-World Family of the Order Passeres, and the chief difficulty 
now seems to lie in separating it from CAMPEPHAGA, with its rela- 
tions, and from the Laniidy (SHRIKE). Every ornithologist must own 
that its precise definition is at present almost impossible, and must 
await that truer knowledge which comes of investigating structural 
characters more deeply seated than any afforded by the epidermis. 
But here want of space forbids the pursuit of this kind of enquiry, 
1 Some form of this word, variously spelt by authors, doubtless gave rise to 
“* Flercher,” which Latham in 1787 said (Syn. B. Suppl. p. 229) was used in 
India ‘‘by some of the English,” and is probably due to a misprint or wrong 
reading. Jerdon says that he was once informed that the Little Bustard was 
“sometimes called Flanderkin” ; but I am not able to find such a name for it. 
May Florican, after all, arise from a mispronunciation of FRANCOLIN ? 
18 
