678 DR. J. MURIE ON THE SKELETON OF TODUS. [May 21, 



undernoted : — "The little Todies of the W. Indies have also been 

 usually classed as Fissirostres ; bin their moderately long and slender 

 legs, short rounded wings, and their excessive activity on their feet 

 are so totally opposed to the characters of every other member of 

 that group that we think them far more naturally associated with 

 such Flycatchers as Todirostrum and Megalophus." 



M. E. Blanchard, to whom allusion has already been made, from 

 his osteological research, says (/. c. p. 122) : — -"On trouvera deja 

 singulierement justifiee l'opinion emise par Cuvier au sujet des affi- 

 nites naturelles des Todiers." According to sternal characters he 

 ranges the Kingfishers, Tody, Jacamars, and Bucco in succession. 

 I may furthermore cite Mr. Eyton, who, in his ' Osteologia Avium,' 

 under the family Alcedinidse, places as subfamilies Alcedinse, Hal- 

 cyoninae, Galbulinse, Meropinae, Todina?, and Coracinse in sequence. 

 Lastly, Dr. Sclater in a curt notice*, seems to indorse Blanchard's 

 view, whose figures of sterna he copies, when he says — " Todus is 

 closely allied to Alcedo and still more to Momotus, its nearest living 

 ally being certainly the diminutive Motmot called Hylomanes momo- 

 tula." Without expressing the reasons wherefore, he concludes — 

 " That the Todidse should be constituted a family of the Coccygo- 

 morphse, in the immediate neighbourhood of the Momotidse." The 

 connexion of these two, as I have noted, Nitzsch long ago advocated 

 from their pterylosis ; and they have since been placed side by side 

 by Mr. George Gray. 



It would seem, then, that where outward appearance has swayed, 

 naturalists judged Todus as having alliance with the Flycatchers or 

 the Motmots ; but where anatomical evidence has been relied on, the 

 Kingfishers and Bee-eaters are the groups with which it carried 

 family likeness. My own studies elicit a certain unanimity out of 

 this cross fire of opinions. 



Todus is inconsistent in several respects. The habits, food, and 

 build or form are mainly those of the Muscicapidse. The coloration 

 partially belongs to that group, and partially leads to some of the 

 Alcedinidse. The long slender tarsus, its scale- covering, and the 

 figure of the wings associate it with the Flycatchers and such insecti- 

 vorous birds ; but the syndactylous disposition of the foot is rather 

 that of the Kingfishers. The shape and the length of the bill does not 

 quite justify such paternity ; for although it has been asserted to be 

 truly Halcyonine, I regard it nssui generis — a kind of compromise with 

 the last, tinctured wonderfully with Muscicapine, Momotine, Mero- 

 pine, Galbuline, and Buccine tendencies. The rictal bristles, though 

 short and weak, markedly take the genus away from the Kingfishers 

 and betoken connexion with the Barbets and Flycatchers. The 

 minutely serrate mandible correlates it to the Motmots. Regarding 

 pterylosis, as we have mentioned, Nitzsch places it between the Mot- 

 mots and Jacamars. But I would observe that in the fact of there 

 being only 19 remiges, we have a number belonging to Psaris, Platy- 

 rhynchus, and Tyrannus, instead of from 21 to 23 pertaining to the 

 group whep.' Todus is put by the German ornithologist. I own, on 

 * ' Ibis,' April 1872, p. 179. 



