NOS.4&5.] THE AUSTRAL AVIAN RECORD 125 



names, had used wrongly the names for his genera and species, 

 while Ridgway had overlooked Lowe's second paper which 

 appeared in the succeeding number of the Ibis, where, deaUng 

 with the " living " fossil Ccenocorypha, he had given figures 

 and a few notes on Rhynchcea = Rostratula, where he indicated 

 that it might be " aberrantly Tringine," but could see nothing 

 RaUine in it, nor Erohine, Gallinagine or Rusticohne. The 

 last item provides the keynote to this essay as (as hereafter 

 shown) Oberholser has reviewed Lowe's grouping and accepted 

 the three subfamilies suggested by Lowe, but has altered the 

 names to be used in accordance with his own idea of type 

 determination of famihes and subfamihes, proposing Canutinse, 

 Scolopacinse and Numeniinse, but giving no hmits and even 

 questioning the inclusion of Numenius with the Tringa series. 

 In the recent Supplement to the A.O.U. Check List Oberholser's 

 conclusions have been accepted and the American representa- 

 tives cited, so that we have now : 



Canutinse Oberholser = Eroliinse Lowe. Macrorhamphus, 



Micropalama, Tringa, Arquatella, Pisobia, Pelidna, 



Erolia, Eurynorhynchus, Ereunetes, Calidris, Limosa, 



Machetes and Tryngites. 



Scolopacinse Oberholser and Lowe. Scolopax, PMlohela and 



Gallinago. 

 Numeniinse Oberholser = Tringinse Lowe. Glottis, Totanus, 

 Helodromas, Rliyacophilus, Catoptrophorus, ~ Heter- 

 actitis, Bartramia, Actitis and Numenius. 

 These genus names are as used in the Check List, but 

 in the Supplement the following changes have been sanc- 

 tioned, Macrorhamphus to Limnodromus, Tringa to Canutus, 

 Calidris to Crocethia, Helodromas to Tringa and Heter actitis 

 to Heteroscelus, while Machetes should have been changed to 

 Philomachus. 



To revert to earlier history, Sharpe in the Handlist admitted 

 two subfamihes only, Totaninse and Scolopacinse, the latter 

 practically covering the Scolopacinse and Eroliinse of Lowe. 



According to our results a basic error appears in the grouping 

 made by Lowe and practically accepted by Oberholser, and 

 that is one which was fuUy exposed by Mathews in the Birds 



