1882.] ANATOMY OF THE TODIES. 449 
special resemblance ; but, as already pointed out, though the arrauge- 
ment is similar, it is not identical, whilst, on the other hand, that 
characterizing the Todies could easily be produced by a slight 
modification of that found in some of the other groups of Anomalo- 
gonatee. 
In the face, then, of the many important differences that exist in 
all parts of the structure of the two forms, and in the absence of 
any special features common to them, I cannot agree to the proposi- 
tion that the Todies are more closely related to the Motmots than 
to any other group. 
In the possession of ceca and in the conformation of their 
pectoral tract the Todies agree with all Garrod’s ‘‘ Passeriformes,” 
with one of the families of which indeed, the Galbulide, one of the 
most acute ornithologists that has ever lived, the late Mr. Blyth, 
associated them as a special group, “ Angulirostres”’. On the other 
hand, in possessing a well-developed tuft to the oil-gland, the Todies 
differ altogether from the Passeriform series of Anomalogonate. 
Detailed comparison of the structure of the Todies with that of the 
other families of this great group is unnecessary, none of them 
possessing features indicating such affinities to the former as to render 
probable any particular genetic connexion of the two. 
As Dr. Murie has already remarked, ‘‘T'odus is inconsistent in several 
respects,”* a truth made more obvious by the facts above recorded, 
In the possession of ceca combined with the tuft to the oil-gland, 
Todus presents an exception to Garrod’s definition of his group Ano- 
maloyonatz *, though it agrees with all of them in the absence of both 
the ambiens and accessory femoro-caudal muscles. Nevertheless it is 
certain, from its characters generally, that Todus is an Anomalogonatous 
bird, though its isolation from any other of the families of that group 
seems to me to preclude its insertion in the Piciformes, Passeri- 
formes, or Cypseliformes of Garrod*. It is impossible, I think, to 
say that Z'odus is more clearly related to any of the Piciformes than 
it is to the Passeriformes ; and to include it the definitions of either 
of those groups would have to be altered. I propose, therefore, to 
create a group of equivalent value to those just named, which may 
be called ‘‘‘Todiformes,” and of which J'odus is the sole living 
representative. 
Next, as to the meaning of these facts. I think few ornithologists 
who have carefully considered the question can doubt that the 
«* Anomalogonate ” of Garrod are a natural group of birds®, i.e. one 
descended from a common ancestor. On this view this ancestor 
must have possessed the sum of the characters—supposing, unless 
there is reason for the contrary, that the latter have not been re- 
developed, and excluding those that may reasonably be supposed to 
1 Charlesworth’s Mag. Nat. Hist. ii. 1838, p. 361, 
2 P. Z.8. 1872, p. 678. 
8 P. Z. 8. 1874, p. 118; Coll. Papers, p. 216. 
4 L.c. p, 222. 
5 It is nearly certain that the Cuculide and Musophagids, as also the Psit- 
tacide, are in no way related to the other so-called Picariz. 
