52 MR. W. P. PYCRAFT ON THE [May 2, 
My own work most certainly tends to support Fiirbringer’s 
conclusions. it 1s possible that the Hurylemidz will prove to 
be related both to the Caprimulgi and Cypseli. As regards the 
connection with the Pici, it is significant to note that the squamosal, 
in the nestling, closely resembles that of the Passerine type, mas- 
much as it overlaps the frontal, an arrangement which does not 
appear to occur elsewhere among the Coraciiformes. 
Coming now to the question of the relationship of the Eury- 
lemide to the remaining Passeres, I would remark, at the 
outset, that there seems scarcely sufficient ground for separating 
the former so widely from the latter as has been done by many 
during recent years. This separation foreshadowed by Garrod, 
and consummated by Forbes, has been widened even further than 
either of these distinguished workers would have considered 
justified. 
Forbes, just twenty-five years ago (2), summarised the main 
features of the Eurylemide, from the systematic point of view, 
as follows:—“.... They are not Tracheophone; and in that 
they possess the sciatic instead of the femoral artery, they differ 
from the Pipride and Cotingide, with which they have so often 
been associated. From these, too, they differ, as uey do from 
the Tyrannide, Pittide, and Rupicola, in the details * of the syrinx 
as well as in the simple manubrium sterni and other points. As 
has already been stated, they differ from all the other Passeres in 
the retention of a vinculum in the deep plantars of the foot... .” 
In a second contribution to this subject during the same month 
these views were repeated. After referring again to the syrinx 
and syndactyle foot, he goes on to remark :—‘‘ The peculiarities 
of the EKurylemide, and especially their oft-spoken-of retention 
of the plantar vinculum, are sufficient, I think, to justify their 
forming a main division of Passeres by themselves, as suggested by 
Prof. Garrod, which may be termed Desmodactyli, in distinction 
from the wunens. Eleutherodactyl . . .” 
It seems to me open to question whether so wide a separation 
is justified. 
After all, the existence, or rather we may say the survival, of 
the plantar vinculum is not so very surprising, not more so than 
the persistence of basipterygoid processes for example—which 
crop up sporadically among groups which have, as a whole, long 
since lost them. In Calyptomena, according to Beddard, this 
vinculum is wanting. Some importance has “been given to the 
statement made by Forbes, that in Hurylemus ochromelas there 
is a second vinculum : the additional slip “‘being given off lower 
down, from the hallux tendon, which joins the tendon of the 
digital flexor at the point where the latter, splitting into three, 
receives the main vinculum.” Gadow (4), commenting on this 
statement, remarks that this arrangement closely agrees with what 
obtains in Upupa and Jrrisor, a fact which suggests the origin of 
the Passerine plantars from this type. 
* Italics mine.—W. P. P. 
