153



Correspondence , Notes, etc.



trast and competition with the Parrots, to which they did, and could do, no

harm whatever. Parrots and Crows have to live together in the wild state,

and are far less unnatural associates for each other than Gulls and Herons,

to the grouping of which together no one seems to object.


I could say a great deal more on this point, as my experience, which

has been unusually wide, if not so long as that of some of our members, is so

very much in favour of grouping birds in large aviaries ; but this letter has

already reached inordinate length, and I merely wish to remark, in conclu¬

sion, that indiscriminate grouping of birds in the projected Bird House at the

Zoo is not in contemplation ; no one would expect such a policy from those

in charge. I believe that birds which will live together will be grouped

—near allies if possible—in any case birds of approximately equal size or

strength. Of course, in such groups little or no breeding can be expected ;

but the Zoological Society has surely other things to do besides breeding

common birds which are within the reach of any amateur, while rare ones

would, of course, as heretofore, be given special facilities for propagation.


In the Calcutta Zoo there were many groups of birds in large cages

or aviaries which did remarkably well, and even breeding occasionlW

occurred, though not specially arranged for, in spite of mixtures which

would have appalled some advocates of what I may call “ pigeon-hole

aviculture.” But after all, when so many of our members have been so

notably successful in breeding birds in aviaries, and aviaries containing

mixed collections at that, one need not go out of England for arguments

in defence of the aviary as a home for birds. Frank Finn.



THE GENUS PHONIPARA.


Sir, —The difficulty of placing this genus in the classification of the

finches has been pointed out by Dr. Sharpe in the “Catalogue of Birds,”

Vol. XII. p. 3. Although located in the sub-family Coccothraustince Dr.

Sharpe says that it is probably a genus of Buntings. Knowing as we do

that the species of Phonipara, unlike the Grosbeaks or the Buntings,

construct cave-like nests with the entrance in front, it seems to me that this

group cannot conveniently be referred to either of these sub-families ; the

nests of Phonipara are over-arched, not bag-like after the manner of the

genus Passer) so that it cannot be happily placed among the Fringillmce.

In short, as I pointed out in “ Foreign Finches in Captivity,” the genus Phoni¬

para, in its habits, far more nearly resembles the Ploceine than the Fringilline

finches, of which it would seem to be a New World representative. On the

other hand ; if, like the Fringillidcz, its tenth primary is a remicle (concealed

within its coverts) and not a bastard-primary (extending beyond the end of

its coverts) Phonipara cannot be referred to the Ploceidce, but should I think

form a fourth sub-family of the Fringillidce under the name of Pho?iiparmce.

A sub-family based upon the habits of its members alone would seem,



