While the Dicseidse will always assume a separate position, to whichever characters 

 we give preference, the Drepanididae can, on the other hand, be separated from the 

 Coerebidse only by the notch in the premaxilla. 



The whole assembly of birds with tubular or brush-shaped tongues appears rather 

 heterogeneous, but not so hopelessly divergent as the so-called Oscines novem-pennatae, 

 which correspond with the Tanagroid Passeres of Wallace, and with the section 

 Fringilliformes of the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum. The families of 

 nine-quilled Passeres are * : — 



1. DiceiDjE (eoccl. Drepanididae). 6. Drepanididae. 



2. HlRUNDlNID<E. 7. CcEREBlD<E. 



3. Ampelid^e. 8. TaNAGRID^E. 



4. Mniotiltid^. 9. Icterld^. 



5. MotacillidjE. 10. Fringillidje. 



To these should be added Zosteropidse, on account of their terminal or tenth primary, 

 which is extremely short and sometimes even suppressed altogether ; these birds 

 certainly are more deserving of being called nine-quilled than many Hirundinidae and 

 Ictericlae. 



Now we see that if we attribute more taxonomic value to the tenth primary than to 

 the tongue, the Drepanididae are completely removed from the Cinnyrimorphae, with the 

 Meliphagine family of which they have undoubtedly many important features in 

 common, besides the structure of their tongues. 1 have already (p. 11) given some 

 of the principal reasons why the Dicaeidse (exclusive of the Drepanididae) cannot be 

 nearly related to the Drepanididae, while on the other hand their associations with the 

 Hirundinidse are strong. If we want to retain the section Fringilliformes, then the 

 Dicaeidae, together with the Hirundinidse, should form one, let us say, Hirundinine 

 subsection ; while the third, fourth, and fifth families enumerated above are like- 

 wise widely different from the rest, to which the appellation Fringilliformes might 

 advantageously be restricted. Whether the Drepanididae are to be included in this 

 Fringilliform assembly or in that of the Meliphagidae cannot be settled until we have 

 examined the taxonomic value of their characters with reference to the Cinnyri- 

 morphae, or rather Meliphagidae, and to the Fringilliformes. 



The formation of the tongue agrees with that of the Coerebidae (Fringilliformes) 

 and with that of the Australian Myzomeline genus Acanthorhynchus. The possession 

 of such a latero-dorsally frayed-out semitubular tongue does not consequently settle 

 the question, and, if anything, indicates that the Drepanididae, through the Ccerebidse, 

 form a link between Fringilliformes and Meliphagidae, unless we assume that such 

 tongues have been developed independently in the groups in question. Such an 

 assumption is perfectly possible. On a former occasion 2 I have shown that the 



1 In a paper entitled " Remarks on the Numbers and on the Phylogenetic Development of the llemiges of 

 Birds," Proc. Zool. Soc. 1888, pp. 655-667, I have drawn attention to the variability in length of this tenth 

 primary, which is supposed to be absent, but nevertheless occasionally 3 centim. long, in the Fringilliformes. 



a " On the Suctorial Apparatus of the Tenuirostres," Proc. Zool, Soc. 1883, pp. 62-69, pi. xvi. 



