124 THE AUSTRAL AVIAN RECORD [Vol. IV, 



it is, in this instance, in tlie most complete and definite way, 

 by an appeal to osteological characters." 



We would have written it differently, but with the same 

 meaning, viz., that superficial and internal features go hand 

 in hand, the former being the more reliable. 



Ridgway, in his excellent Birds of North and Middle 

 America, part VIII., concluded : " excellent reasons for the 

 recognition of two subfamilies, apart from the Scolopacinse, 

 namely, the Eroliinse and Tringinse. Unfortunately Mr. 

 Lowe's researches are confined to only part of the genera, and 

 he leaves us in ignorance concerning the affinities of Limosa, 

 Vetola, Pseudoscolopax, Limnodromus, Catoptrophorus, Hetero- 

 scelus, Tryngites, Bartramia, Numenius, Phceopus and Meso- 

 scolopax. The first three of these almost certainly belong to 

 the Eroliinse, and the two following to the Tringinse, but the 

 position of Tryngites, Bartramia, Numenius, Phceopus and 

 Mesoscolopax is quite uncertain, and consequently I am not 

 able to avail myself of Mr. Lowe's two groups in the construc- 

 tion of the above ' key.' which therefore must be understood 

 as a purely artificial one. Bostratula and the true Scolopacinae 

 also require special investigation, especially the former, which 

 doubtless, on account of its many marked peculiarities, 

 represents a distinct subfamily, Bostratulince. It is possible 

 that if Mr. Lowe had been able to study all these genera when 

 his paper was prepared he might have found that his groups, 

 Eroliinee and Tringinse, are not so distinct as they appeared 

 to be, some of the genera not examined being possibly inter- 

 mediate in characters. However this may be, the Scolo- 

 pacinse (Woodcocks and true Snipes) seem to form one end of 

 the series, the Eroliinse coming between them and the Tringinse. 

 . . . The curious genus Bostratida has usually been placed 

 with this group (Scolpacinse), but judging from external 

 characters alone, almost certainly does not belong here." 



Then under Eroliinse he included Limosa and Vetola only 

 tentatively, but still separating these from Numenius, etc. 

 which he referred to the Tringinse. 



Errors are apparent in the preceding as Lowe, through 

 ignorance of nomenclatural usages and unfamiliar with bird 



