1896. ] ON THE ANATOMY OF THE KINGFISHERS, 603 
Distribution.—These two subspecies seem to be distributed, 
roughly speaking, in the manner stated by De Selys-Longchamps 
in 1847, in fact it would be impossible to add to or correct what 
he has said on this point without examining more specimens than 
are at present available. The fact that the two French specimens 
which I have been able to examine are of the neglectus form is 
very interesting and confirms De Selys-Longchamps’s statements. 
There are no German specimens in the British Museum collection, 
but Dehne* has stated that M. agrestis neglectus occurs fairly 
commonly in Saxony, near Penig and Lossnitz, while Fatio found 
it in the Hasli Thal, in Switzerland. 
To show the differences in size between the two races, I give the 
dimensions (see pp. 600, 601). 
The measurements are taken from the ten largest British 
specimens I could lay hands upon, and I have added to them those 
of the only two French specimens which were available. 
In all cases, except those of Mr. Bonhote’s specimens, the measure- 
ments of the tails were taken so as not to include the last hairs. The 
specimens kindly collected for me by Messrs. Coward and Caton 
Haigh were measured by Mr. F. Metcalfe of Cambridge; the 
dimensions of the remainder were taken by the collectors. It 
will be seen that the length of an average British specimen runs 
to about 106 millimetres, while anything above that must be. 
regarded as large. The two largest British specimens I have 
been able to examine are my own no. 47, sent me by Mr. Coward 
from Cheshire, and Mr. de Winton’s no. W.86 from Herefordshire. 
These two somewhat approach the younger Norway specimens in 
size and characters, and these are the only two that do so out of 
numerous specimens examined. 
3. Contributions to the Anatomy of Picarian Birds.— 
Part III. On some Poimts in the Anatomy of the 
Kingfishers. By Frank E. Bepvary, M.A., F.R.S., 
Prosector to the Society. 
[Received May 18, 1896.] 
The family Alcedinide shows more structural variation within 
its own limits than any other family of Picarian Birds. 
The first to call attention to this was Prof. Garrod, who re- 
marked in describing * the tensores patagii of various Passerine and 
Picarian Birds—“ In the Alcedinide the differences are so con- 
siderable in the several genera that I reserve the description of 
the muscle in this order for a future occasion.” Again, in referring 
to the course of the leg-veins he pointed out the abnormal con- 
1 A. Dehne in ‘ Allgemeine deutsche naturhistorische Zeitung,’ new series, 
vol. ii. pp. 212 and 223 (1856). 
2 “On some Anatomical Peculiarities which bear upon the Major Divisions 
of the Passerine Birds.—Pt. I.,” P.Z.S. 1877, p. 512. 
39* 
