XX 



LIST OF PLATES. 



Fig. 43. Palmeria dolei. 



' I Pseudonestor xdnthophrys. 

 45. 5 . J 



^ (> ' ^ ' 1 Psittirostra psittacea. 



47. ?J 



48. Loxioides bailleui. 



49. Telespiza cantons, 



50. M cantons (sub nomine flavissima I). 



51. Rhodacanihis Jlaviceps (sub nomine Telespiza). 



52. „ palmeri ( „ „ )• 



Pig. 53. CUoridops Jcona, showing the space between 

 upper and under parts of bill ! 



54. Tongue of Pseudonestor xanthophrys, nat. size. 



54 a. The same, four times enlarged. 



55. Tongue of Ciridops anna. 



55 a. The same, five times enlarged. 



56. Tongue of Drepanis paeifiea, nat. size. 



56 a. Apex of the same, ten times enlarged. 



5 '' 1 Sternum of Drepanis pacifica. 

 58. J 



[Note by E. H abteet. — The figures 44 to 47 and 27 to 34 show the great similarity between the bills of Jfenu 

 gnatL (Beterorhynchus), Pseudonestor, and Psittirostra. Many years ago Cabanis and Sclater had already >ot^ 

 that MM is a L^mne bird, but the Pseudonestor shows the most wonderful —on. The tongue 

 (54 and 54 a) is much frayed out, and shows the position of the bird at a glance. Nevertheless, Mr. Rothsch Id » a u en 

 first describing this form, perfectly right in comparing it with Psittirostra only making t he « 

 he accepted Gadow's view that the latter was a Fringillme bird. Dr. Gadow has since not only admitted that 1 fatt. ostra 

 is Drepanine, but he places also all the other thick-hilled birds of the Sandwich Islands among the Br epam c^. The 

 tongue of Psittirostra is very peculiar, and differs much from the tongues of true Fru^lUne birds, such as P^r 

 Fringilla, (Moris, and Coccothraustes, which have a much thicker, more compact, and less frayed-out tongue Ihe fcgure 

 given by Dr. Gadow of the tongue of Psittirostra, in his celebrated chapter on Hawaiian birds in the Aves Hawanenses, 

 is evidently totally schematical, and does not at all look like the Psittirostra -tongues before me, which are distinctly 

 frayed out at the tip and hollowed out along the upper surface as if laterally contractile into a sort of tube, or, at least 

 developed from a tubularly-contractile form of a tongue. Dr. Gadow seemed formerly to attach value to the form of 

 the crop : but not only Finches have a big and pouch-like crop, but also Panurus biarmicus, winch is, in my opinion, a 

 Tit and certainly not a Finch. It is to me evident that the crop is much sooner altered by the food than the external 

 characters used for classification by the " ordinary cabinet-ornithologist," Though, however, seeing much m Pseudo- 

 nestor and Psittirostra that differs from the Fringillido?, it seems to me that Telespiza, Rhodaeanthts, and Chhndops 

 cannot by the form of their bills or their tongues be separated from the Finches. Their bills differ much from that of 

 Psittirostra (see the figures!), and their tongues are much thicker and more compact at the tips, as if quite immovable 

 and in no way laterally contractile. Why, then, are they not FringMd* ? It is quite possible that Dr Gadow s recent 

 view that they are Drepanidce in disguise is correct, a view which is also accepted by Mr. Rothschild in this work. It is, 

 however, a bad sign for our present state of systematic knowledge of the Passeres that morphologists like Dr. Gadow 

 are in uncertainty about a bird being a lunch or a Drepanide. His view that all (or, better, most of) our so-called 

 families of Passeres do not deserve that rank is certainly correct, but, nevertheless, there are subdivisions, and it is 

 hardly advisable to take geographical distribution as a character to define a family, as Dr. Gadow (Aves Hawanenses 

 Part vii.) thinks we might have to do in future. With little time and osteological experience, and not enough material 

 at hand, I cannot say much about the palatine bones of these birds, but it seems to me, from comparing those o 

 Bemit/nathus, Pseudonestor, and Psittirostra, that they alter surprisingly in connection with the form of the bill, and 

 that slight differences in the roof of the mouth of Psittirostra and Telespiza mean therefore nothing. Nevertheless 

 there is for me no proof that all Hawaiian birds are Drepanidce, while Psittirostra doubtless is a Drepamne bird. 

 More investigations about the anatomy, biology, and nidology of these birds are certainly needed.] 



