THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
is a most important contribution to the subject, but is handicapped 
by the presence of peculiar nomenclatural ruhngs and the author’s wide 
generic limits. The latter were based entirely on colour, but in many cases 
unreasonable characters were utilised, and consequently confusion resulted. 
Seebohm was one of the first, if not the first, ornithologist to use the character 
of nestling-plumage in systematic work, but was so prejudiced against the 
users of so-called structural features, that he omitted to take into consideration 
the form of the biU and feet of the nesthngs as a guide to accurate classifi- 
cation. I find that, in agreement with Seebohm, there appears to be a 
similarity in the structural characters correlative with the colour of the 
plumage, but that, if this be natural, it is emphasized in the nestling. 
Seebohm’s progressive methods, combined with his (almost) rudeness 
to his feUow-workers, did not gain for his work the appreciation it deserved 
from British ornithologists. Yet there is much of great value in his book, 
and it is well worthy of serious study at the present time. The higher 
groupings advocated by Seebohm are now inadmissible, so that they scarcely 
call for criticism. 
In the British Museum Catalogue, Sharpe introduced a novel classifi- 
cation in tliis Order, admitting seven sub-Orders, viz. Chionides, Attagides, 
Charadrii, Parrce, Gursorii, (Edicnemi, and Otides. The first two sub-Orders 
do not concern Australian students ; the last four wiU be treated later. 
The sub-Order Charadrii simply contained the one family Charadriidce, 
which however was sub-divided into ten subfamilies, thus : Arenariince, 
Hmnato'podinoe, Lobivanellince, Charadriince, Peltohyatince, Himantopodince, 
Ihidorhynchince, Totanince, Scolopacince, and Phalaropince. 
The majority of previous systematists had admitted the family Scolopacidce 
as distinct from the family Charadriidce, more often other groups intervening. 
My own studies have led me to suggest seven groups as worthy of family 
rank, viz. MorinelUdce {= Arenariince Sharpe), Hoeinatopodidce { — Hcematopo- 
dince Sharpe), Charadriidce (= Lobivanellince + Charadriince Sharpe), 
Recurvirostridce { — Uimantopodince Sharpe), Ibidorhynchidce {—Ibidorhynchince 
Sharpe), Scolopacidce { = Totanince + Scolopacince Sharpe), and Phalaropidce 
( = Phalaropince Sharpe) . 
The Charadriidce, mihi, I would divide into two subfamilies, Vanellince 
and Charadriince ; while the Scolopacidce, mihi, may be separated into two sub- 
families, Scolopacince and Tringince. My reasons for so doing wiU be fully 
given under the groups named. 
It is pleasing to note that in so valuing my groups I find myself in fair 
agreement (in outhne) with the classification in use in the American Ornith- 
ologists’ Union’s Checklist, 3rd ed. I had calculated my group-values from a 
2 
