Family PARID^E. 



THE TITMOUSES. 



Gates included the Titmouses in the same family as the Crows 

 and the group of birds he called Crow-Tits. Whilst, however, 

 they show certain affinities with both of these groups, the three 

 seem to be much easier to Separate than are many others, such as 

 the Thrushes, flycatchers and Warblers, the true Shrikes, etc., 

 and it, therefore, seems to be more consistent to keep these 

 separate also. 



The Titmouses, Paridce, differ from the Corvidce in having the 

 first primary equal to or less than half the length of the second, 

 whereas the latter have this always more than half as long as the 

 second. 



Like the Corvidce, the Paridce have the nostrils concealed by 

 feathers or bristles, though in the genus Melonochlora the soft 

 feathers which lie over the nostrils do not wholly cover them. 

 The bill is short and conical, varying considerably in depth and 

 stoutness ; the rictal bristles are short, the tarsus well developed 

 and the surface scutulated; the wing is generally weak and 

 rounded but is longer and more pointed in Melanochlora. 



Hellmayr has divided the Titmouses into several subfamilies, and 

 includes amongst them the Paradoxorniihidce, These latter birds, 

 however, seem to me to constitute a good family, showing in some 

 respects an affinity to the Titmouses, but in others a still closer 

 connection with the Timeliidce. The genus Panurtts, the Bearded 

 Tits, should probably also be placed with the Paradoxornithida. 



As regards the Indian Titmouses, 1 see no reason to divide them 

 into subfamilies, and I include them all in the same. Since, 

 however, the 'Fauna of India' was published, we have had to add 

 other genera and species to our list, the principal being Remiz 

 (Anihoscopus) coronatus and Parus (Cyanistes) cyanus. 



The key to the genera given below applies only to our Indian 

 species. Hellmayr includes Lophophanes, Sylviparus, Machlolo- 

 phus and Cyanistes in the genus Parus, but though Cyanistes 

 cannot be divided from that genus, the other three appear to me 

 to be generically distinct and are therefore retained. Lopho- 

 phanes, it is true, is not always crested. Our Indian Lophophanes 

 ater cemodius has a well-developed crest, although it is only a sub- 

 species of L. ater ater which has none and the two extremes are 

 linked up by geographical races which have crests in varying 

 degree. On the other hand, the shape of the tail in this genus 

 quite suffices to keep it distinct from Parus. 



Cyanistes is a true Parus in everything but colour. 



The young are like the adult but paler, and in some species the 

 grey or black in the adult is strongly suffused with green in the 

 young. 



