52 MR. w. p. PYCRAFT ON THE [May 2, 



My own work most certainly tends to supjjoi-t Fiirbringev's 

 conclusions. It is possible that the Eurylfemidfe 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, inas- 

 much as it overlaps the frontal, an arrangement which does not 

 appear to occur elsewhere among the Ooraciiformes. 



Coming now to the question of the relationship of the Eury- 

 Ifemidse 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 

 duiing recent years. This sepai-ation foreshadowed by Garrod, 

 and consummated by Forbes, has been widened even fui-ther than 

 either of these distinguished workers would have considered 

 justified. 



Forbes, just twenty-five years ago (2), summarised the main 

 features of the Euryla^mida?, 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 Piprida; and Cotingidfe, with which they have so often 

 been associated. From these, too, they diflfer, as they do from 

 the Tyrannida?, Pittida?, and Rujncola., in the details * of the syiinx 

 as well as in the simple manubrium sterni and other points. As 

 has already been stated, they difFei- from all the other Passei'es 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 i-emai-k : — " The peculiarities 

 of the Euiylasmidse, and especiall}^ their oft-spoken-of retention 

 of the plantar vinculum, are sufficient, 1 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 others, Eleutherodactjdi ..." 



It seems to me oj)en 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 sui'prising, 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 Ccdijptomena., according to Beddard, this 

 vinculum is wanting. Some importance has been given to the 

 statement made by Forbes, that in Eurylcemits 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, remai-ks that this arrangement closely agrees with w hat 

 obtains in Upupa and Irrisor, a fact which suggests the origin of 

 the Passerine plantars from this type. 



* Italics mine. — W. P. P. 



