1909.] OF THE PASSERINE BIRD ARACHNOTHERA MAGNA. 533 
In Cereba chloropyga the skull is typically passerine, and in 
some respects resembles the skull as found in certain American 
Warblers, being quite distinct from what we find in Arachnothera, 
to which genus it bears no special aftinity. 
So entirely different is the skull in such a species as Prosthema- 
dera novee-hollandie of New Zealand, a bird placed among the 
Meliphagide, that a separate description would be required to 
give an account of it. Here the masals are very broad antero- 
poster lorly, and each is pierced by a central foramen, an unusual 
character. Then the pars plane are very thick from before 
backwards, and a longitudinal groove marks the external aspect 
of each. 
In not a few particulars Acanthogenys rufigularis of Australia 
is a Meliphagidine species with a skull not at all unlike what we 
find in the species of Acanthorhynchus, and these forms are more 
or less nearly related. Acanthogenys has the broad nasals, each 
pierced by the small central foramen, and there are several 
other points in the two skulls of more or less close agreement. 
But such representatives of the Meliphagidee have no special 
relationship with the Coerebide, and even less with the typical 
Nectarinude. Judging from the skulls alone, it is not difficult to 
recognize the more or less close relationship existing among the 
species I have before me of the genera Hntomyza, Acanihogenys, 
and Prosthemadera, all of which present characters in this part 
of the skeleton quite different from anything we find in Arachno- 
thera, and surely offer no skull-characters at all approaching any 
of the Trochilidee. 
I have made no attempt to either study or compare the ossifica- 
tions presented on the part of the trachez in any of these birds. 
From superficial examination only, I would say that although 
generic and family differences-are easily to be seen in these parts, 
yet at the same time no very striking departures are to be noticed 
from the general passerine character in any of them. 
Having then compared the morphological characters of the 
skull and the associated osseous structures in such species as 
there are at hand representing the families Coerebide, Necta- 
riniide, Certhiide, and Meliphagide, and these characters with 
the corresponding ones in the skull of Z'rochilus, it is clear that, 
in so far as this part of the skeleton is concerned, these four 
passerine families are a very long way removed from the Super- 
suborder Zrochiliformes, and this is no more than one would 
naturally expect to find. 
My views upon the position in the system of the four above- 
named families have already been published, and I see no special 
reason for changing them*. From this point on any further 
comparison of the skeletons of these birds with the osteology of 
* Suureipt, R. W. “‘ An Arrangement of the Families and the Higher Groups 
of Birds.” Amer. Nat. vol. xxxviii. nos. 455-456, Boston, Nov.—Dec. 1904, pp. 835- 
856. 
