TROGLODYTID^ — THE WRENS AND MOCKING-THRUSHES. lOii 



Genus HARPORHYNCHUS Cabanis. 



Barporhynchus Cabanis, Arehiv f. Natuig. 1848. 1. 98. Type. Harpes redivhus Game. 



Metltriopterus Reich. Av. Syst. Nat. 1860. pi. iv. Type, Turdus rufus Linn. 

 "Gen. Char. Bill from forehead iis long as, or much longer than the heail; becoming 

 more and more decurved in both jaws as lengthened. No indication of a notch. Rictus 

 with the bristles extending beyond the nostrils. Tarsus long and stout, appreciably ex- 

 ceeding the middle toe and claw, strongly scutelUite anteriorly. Wings considerably 

 shorter than tail, much rounded: the first (luill more than halt the second; fourth or fifth 

 longest. Tail large, much graduated; the feathers Arm. 



"The species of this genus are all of large size, in fact, embrac- 

 ing the largest of the American slender-billed oscinine birds. All the 

 species differ in structure, varying especially in the length of the 

 bill, as above stated." {Hist. N. Am. B.) 



The genus, as defined above, is divisible into two well-defined 

 sections, for convenience here termed subgenera (although they are 

 possibly of generic rank), which may be characterized as follows : 



1. Harporhynchus. Tarsus much shorter than culmen; gonys equal to or longer than 

 middle toe, without claw; tail exceeding the wing by much more than the length of the 

 tarsus. Lower parts wholly immaculate. 



2. Methrioptenis. Tarsus longer than the culmen; gonvs much shorter than the 

 middle toe. without claw; tail exceeding the wing by much less than the length of the 

 tarsus. Lower parts more or less distinctly spotted or streaked. 



To Harporhynchus, as thus restricted, belong only //. redlvivus 

 (Gamb.), H. lecontel (Lawr.) and H. crlssalis Henry, while to Methri- 

 optenis may he referred the following: M. rufus (Linn.), M. longiroxtris 

 (Lafr.), M. ocellatus (Scl.), M. ciiiereus (Xant.), M. bendirei (Coues), 

 M. palmeri Ridgw., and M. curvirostris (Swains.). This arrangement, 

 I am aware, removes M. pcdmeri much further from H. lecontei 

 than Mr. Brewster, (c/. Bull. Nutt. Ora. Club, vi, Apr. 1881, 

 p. 67) has suggested should be its position ; but after a very 

 careful comparison of all the species, I am convinced that the 

 two birds have in fact nothing in common beyond a general super- 

 ficial resemblance in coloration. In fact, these two species, which 

 exhibit the nearest approach in the two genera, may be as certainly 

 distinguished by the characters given above as may H. redivivus 

 and H. rufus, although the difference is of course far greater between 

 the two latter. 



