102 Mathews, The Nestlings of Aiisiralian Finches. r,sf"oLt 



The Weaver Finches can scarcely be said to merit their name, 

 for they build nests which are not pensile, nor really woven, their 

 most typical form being flask-shaped. The entrance opens at 

 the side. . . A striking thing about their nesting habits— 

 in many species, at least — is that the parents neglect to clean 

 the nest of excrement, with the result that it becomes extremely 

 foul before the young are ready to leave it. This is rarely the 

 case with the Ploceinae. . . So far as I can ascertain, the 

 Estrildinas in every case lay pure white eggs. . . From the 

 preceding remarks, it should be clear that in order to decide on 

 the relationships of the various genera of Ploceidae, the examina- 

 tion of nests and young is indispensable. . . It is greatly 

 to be hoped that ornithologists will investigate the nesting. 

 . The skeleton, and particularly the sternum, of the last- 

 named genera are worthy of attention. Important features of 

 many . . . genera are still in doubt. . . The exact 

 affinities of Tceniopygia and the other Australian genera may not 

 be very clear, but they are all surely Estrildine." 



A diagram is given to illustrate the apparent development of 

 the forms, and Poephila, with which Chapin would associate the 

 other Australian forms, though he has indicated that Munia is 

 aberrant, is placed almost at the limit. On this account alone 

 it would be of great value to have on record the coloration of the 

 mouths of Australian birds. There is almost a score of species 

 on the Australian list, and the majority of these are referred to 

 different genera, a dozen being accepted by conservative workers. 

 Very different coloration is seen throughout the series, and in 

 some cases the same colour-pattern has been retained, though 

 structural differences have been evolved. Nothing is known about 

 the mouth coloration, save in the case of Poephila and Munia 

 (not the Australian species of the latter genus). 



Chapin, from other characters, ranges the species into groups, 

 and thus Aidemosyne and Munia appear in the lowest, then 

 Tceniopygia, then Bathilda, Mgintha, Stizoptera, Zonceginthus, 

 Neochmia, Stagonopleura, Erythura, and Poephila, while he appears 

 to have overlooked Emblema. This is apparently Chapin 's idea 

 of their development, and it is certainly different from the 

 grouping, following Sharpe, given in my " List," which reads : — 

 Stagonopleura, Zonceginthus, Tceniopygia, Emblema, Stizoptera, 

 Lonchura and Heteromunia {= Munia, Chapin), Aidemosyne, 

 Mgintha, Bathilda, Poephila, and Alisteranus and Neopoephila 

 ( = Poephila, Chapin), and Neochmia, Erythura having been added 

 since the " List " was published. Many of the Australian species 

 are available to field ornithologists, so I am writing this note 

 asking anyone who meets with nestlings to observe and record 

 the coloration or any other details of the mouths, so that Chapin's 

 notes may be confirmed, or otherwise, from different material 

 and locality. 



A couple of interrogations may be noted. Have the Australian 

 species referred to Munia the same aberrant mouth-coloration as 



I 



