FAM. MUSOPHAGID&A 
BY DR. ALPHONSE DUBOIS 


VA 
(emoxs do not quite agree as to the place which the Musophagide ought to occupy 
. in the series of Birds.I see little use in quoting the opinions of ancient authors on 


—-o 
this subject and it will suffice to mention the views of those who have made 
a study of this family during the last few years. 
In 1860, Dr. Cabanis (1) placed the Musophagide after the Caprimulgide, adding the 
former to the Coliid@ and to the Ofisthocomid@, forming a tribe which he called the Amphibole 
(« Wendezeher »). Twelve years later, Sundevall (2) arranged the Meliphagide and the Coliide 
together with the Coraciide in his fourth Cohors (Coenomorphe). In 1880, P. L. Sclater, in his 
Systema Avium (3), joins the Musophagide to the Cuculid@, thus forming his group of Coccyges, 
which he placed after the Zygodactyle, putting the Coliid@ at the top of the Anisodactyle. 
Finally, Dr. R. Bowdler Sharpe admitted the Coccyges of Sclater, but placed them in succes- 
sion to the 7rogonide, while the last named are preceded by the Coliide (4). 
In my Syvopsis Avium (1899) I adopted the suborder Amphibole of Dr. Cabanis, with 
the exclusion of the Ofisthocomide (which are not Scansores) and I placed the families in the 
following order : 1. Heterodactyle : Trogonide; 2. Amphibole : Musophagide, Coliide; 
3. Anisodactvla : Coraciidee, Momotidee, etc. (5). 
I think that in this arrangement the Musophagide occupy their right place. 
(1) Museum Herneanum, Vol. 3, p. 96-102 (1860). 
(2) Methodé naturalis avium disponendarwn tentamen, p. 82 (1572). 
(3) Ibis, 1880, p. 399-402. 
(4) Hand-list of the Genera and Species of Birds, Vol. 2, p. 152-154 (1900). 
(5) Synopsis Avium, Vol, 1, p. 88-91; Vol. 2, p. 1060 (1899-1904). 
