1874. J DR. MURIE ON FREGILUPUS VARIUS. 487 



(6?. organica) as sufficiently diverse examples — the former genus, 

 moreover, evidently being that intended by Vieillot, and not the true 

 Rollers, Coracias. In the Chough, compared with Fregilupus, the 

 rear of the skull is full and globular, the beak straighter, shorter, and 

 considerably wider, but the prefrontal is relatively narrower and with 

 scarcely any interorbital depression ; lachrymal partially free ; maxillo- 

 palatines almost overlap ; postpalatiue border without emargination. 

 Thus, what between height, breadth, &c, much less cranial resem- 

 blance obtains than in Pastor ; added to which a shorter triangular 

 tongue, humerus with siugle pneumatic foramen, praeilium long and 

 eflect or horizontal, lengthened pubis, shorter toes, &c, and their re- 

 lationship widens. In the Tasmanian Piping Crow still more nume- 

 rous differences present themselves, which it is needless to recount ; 

 suffice it to say, this Streperine section of the Crow veers quite away 

 from our bird. 



Reverting a moment to allies of the Starling family, I may men- 

 tion I compared Fregilupus with the skeleton of more than one 

 species of the genus Acridotheres, to which it offers fewer points of 

 union than to Pastor. Of the Lamprotornithinse or Juidinse I more 

 particularly paid attention to the osteology of Lamprotornis ce?ieus 

 and Scissirostrum pagei. Both, particularly the latter, evince such 

 divergence as suggest transition of type. The genus Psaroglossa and 

 subgenus Hartlaubius (the bones of which I have not seen) alone 

 intervene between Scissirostrum and Fregilupus, according to the 

 late Mr. G. R. Gray. 



Sequel as to the Fraternity of Fregilupus, 



The study of the skeleton of this rare Reunion bird most unques- 

 tionably does not favour the idea of its being allied to the Hoopoes, 

 nor to the Fregiline section of the Crows, other than by very subsi- 

 diary links. Its osseous structure is far from complying with that of 

 the Bee-eaters, nor does mere beak-production draw it within the fold 

 of the tenuirostral division of the Paradise-birds. With members 

 of the Starling family it agrees in a host of particulars, and notably 

 with the genus assigned it by Wagler. Yet it bears such consistent 

 characters, that, as a genus, Fregilupus, it hails close proximity 

 to Pastor (P. roseus), without being amalgamated as a species of the 

 latter. It is also related to Sturnus and mayhap Sturnopastor* , but 

 with a tincture of dilution. Even as far as bony build of itself goes, 

 it has an affinity with the Orioles ; but these, as with the Mynahs, 

 Choughs, and Glossy Starlings, &c, are outlying relations not at 

 present to be included within the narrowed focus, nor as impinging 

 with direct continuity. The life-history and soft anatomy of Fre- 

 gilupus, unfortunately, are imperfectly known ; but, as far as out- 



* The so-quoted Pastor capcnsis, Temm., which by Hartlaub and others is 

 given as a synonym of Fregilupus, I find is a mistake. In Temminck's ' Tab. 

 Meth. Planches Col.' i. p. 12, the bird referred to " Etourneau pie du Cap," viz. 

 pi. 280 of Buff. PI. Enlum.. is the Starnop>astor contra, Linn., a true Indian 

 form. 



