﻿CLASSIFICATION. 



v 



Nor will this arrangement be found unsatisfactory, as the links of the two subfamilies 

 (Monachalcyon and Tanysiptera) are so closely allied that the chain of connexion seems 

 almost unbroken. 



I have taken the genus Alcedo as my starting-point, as it is the most usually accepted 

 type of the family ; and thence I have traced the progression of the genera towards Melidora, 

 which I consider to be the extreme development of Eeptilivorous Kingfisher. That the 

 natural sequence in the evolution of the genera has been from Melidora to Alcedo I endea- 

 vour to show in a subsequent page. 



The family Alcedinidce may be divided into two subfamilies, as follows : — 



a. Rostro compresso, culmine distincte carinato 1. Alcedinince. 



b. Rostro plus minusve depresso; culmine laevi, rotundato vel sulcato . . 2. Dacelonince. 



These two subfamilies appear to contain 125 species, belonging to 19 genera, as follows, 

 namely : — 



Alcedininte 5 genera .... 41 species. 



Dacelonince 14 genera .... 84 species. 



I have been unable to distinguish several species, all of which are enumerated in my 

 notices of the different works in the chapter on "Literature." 



Subfamily I. Alcedinince. 



Conspectus generum Alcedininarum. 



a. Cauda breviore quam rostro, vel huic sequante. 

 a'. Digitis quatuor. 



a". Caput cristatum, plumis pilei antici ad occiput haud extendentibus 1. Alcedo. 



b". Caput cristatum, plumis pilei antici post occiput extendentibus . . 2. Corythornis. 



b' Digitis tribus 3. Alcyone. 



b. Cauda rostrum multo superante. 



a'. Gonyde versus basin lata 4. Ceryle. 



b'. Gonyde acuta, valde compressa 5. Pelargopsis. 



A reference to the plate of generic characters is sufficient to show the difference in the 

 shape of the crest in Alcedo and Corythornis (Plate I. figs. 1 & 2), the form of the crest- 

 feather in the latter genus being elongated and broadened out towards the apex. Again, 

 although Alcedo and Alcyone, in the form of bill and wing, are almost identical, yet the 

 absence of a toe in the latter genus, in addition to the generally uniform nature of the 

 upper plumage, presents, in my opinion, sufficient ground for generic separation (figs, la 

 & 3). On the other hand, however, Ceryle and Pelargopsis are exceedingly difficult to 

 separate ; but a character can be found in the skulls, where it will be seen that that of 

 Ceryle (fig. 11) has the lachrymal bones as in true Alcedo, whereas Pelargopsis has these 

 bones developed into a backward process (fig. 12). There is also a difference in the acute- 

 ness of the ridge of the gonys, which is the character adduced in my diagnostic table. 



