THE GAME BIRDS OF INDIA. 9 



The inner posterior notch on each side of the sternum is more 

 than half the length of the sternum instead of less than half as iii 



the Peristoropodes . 



Families. 



Ogilvie- Grant divides the Alectoropodes into two families, the 

 Tetraonidce and Phasianidce, the former having the nostrils fea- 

 thered, and the toes naked and pectinate or feathered, whilst the 

 latter have the nostrils clear of feathers and the toes without 

 pectination and not feathered. 



An additional character used by him to differentiate between the 

 two families, i.e., the feathering of the tarsus, does not hold good 

 through out, for though all the Tetraonidce have the tarsi feathered, 

 one species, Leriva, of the Phasianidce also has the tarsus well 

 feathered and a second, Tetraogallus, has it partially so covered. In 

 spite of this, however, I consider his diagnosis of the two families 

 the best put forward, so far and when considered together with the 

 general appearance of the birds and their habits, the reasons given 

 appear to be full}- sufficient to authorize the division, and I there- 

 fore accept the two families. 



Of the Tetraonidce, or true grouse, we have no representatives in 

 India, but the Phasianidce are very well represented. 



'E&mi\j—PHA8IANII)^. 



Sub-Families. 



When we come to consider in what way the family Phasianidce 

 can, or should, be divided into sub-families, w^e are faced with a 

 most difficult problem. Jerdon, who like Ogilivie-Grant, divided his 

 game birds into two families, Phasianidce. and Tetraonidce, divided 

 each of these again into three sub-families, the first into Pavonince, 

 Phasianince and Gallince, and the second into Tetraonince, Percli- 

 oince and Goturnicincv. But these divisions are admittedly more 

 popular than scientific, and there is no really definite dividing line 

 between the various groups as formed by him. Ogilvie-Grant, in 

 Game Birds, divides his Phasianidm into two divisions, Phasianince 

 and Perdicince, basing his division on two features, (1) comparative 

 length of tail and (2) length of first primary in comparison with 

 the tenth. Neither of these features, however, are consistent, 

 though on the whole they work fairly well. Finally Blanford, in 

 the Fauna of British India, Birds, failing to find any satisfactory 

 reasons for, or method of, division, attempts none, and keeps all the 

 Phasianidce together as one undivided family. 



To the Sportsman and Field Naturalists the majority of the game 

 birds form themselves into four fairly definite groups, vi^:., Peafowl, 

 Argus Pheasants, Pheasants, and Partridges, to which we may 

 2 



