204 Dr. J. Murie on the Upupidae. 



ana (Paradiseidae) typical of the other, I can satisfactorily dis- 

 pose of these as not being of nearest kin to the Upupidae. In 

 Seleucides, whilst the elongate praernaxilla is not unlike that 

 of Irrisor, it yet differs most materially at the root, and espe- 

 cially depression at junction with prefrontals. There is a 

 large interorbital fenestra. The palate is passerine, i. e. stout 

 vomer and non-union of maxillo-palatines, therefore palatal 

 cleft wide. Pterygoids long and slender. The mandibular 

 symphysis is deeply grooved for the reception of a very long, 

 delicate, tapering tongue, and the postarticular angle of the 

 lower jaw truncate. Tongue-bones unusually long. There 

 is an episternal process to the furcula ; sternal rostrum large 

 and furcate ; keel sharp forwards ; middle much longer than 

 external xiphoicls. Pelvis narrow anteriorly. Leg-bones of 

 great length ; four upper tarsal perforations for tendons, and 

 other skeletal differences. In Paradisea most of these points 

 in the body and limbs bear out within certain limits the con- 

 trast exhibited by Seleucides. The skull of Paradisea, more- 

 over, as to general shape, and particularly premaxillary and 

 mandibular peculiarities, is far more unlike that of the Upu- 

 pidae. Nitzsch has long ago shown there is a vast difference 

 in their pterylosis. If, moreover, we supplement geographical 

 distribution, habit, &c, distinction and separation from Irrisor 

 and Upupa is abundantly warranted in the face of SundevalPs 

 union. 



I may here observe there is great difficulty in proving what 

 Passerine approaches nearest to the Upupidae ; as regards the 

 Syndactylae the problem is easier. 



The resemblances between Promerops, Upupa, and Iri'isor 

 in the form of the beak and, partly, tail have suggested their 

 close alliance to many ornithologists. This similarity in out- 

 ward aspect, however, is contra-indicated by their skeleton, 

 which differs trenchantly. In Plate VII. I have delineated 

 the skull and certain of the bones of Promerops as contrasted 

 with Rhinopomastus. My notes thereon I reserve for another 

 communication, as also the summary of characters distin- 

 guishing the Epopomorphre, their insertiou in this paper 

 being deemed too lengthy. 



