LOBIBYX. 
seems apparent from the fact that while Lohihyx {—Lobivanellus Sharpe) is 
placed in the subfamily Lohivanellince, Xiphidiopterus becomes a member 
of the subfamily Charadriince. I would restrict Lobihyx to the Austrahan species 
and would introduce AFRIBYX for the African species with A. lateralis 
Smith {=zVanellus lateralis Smith) as type. In the same way I would restrict 
Xiphidiopterus to the African species, and for the Malayan species — called 
Xiphidiopterus cucullatus (Temminck) but whose correct specific name is tricolor 
Horsfield — I would propose ROGIBYX. In the British Museum Catalogiie, 
Va7iellus tricolor Horsfield was rejected on account of a prior tricolor Vieillot, 
but that author introduced his species as Charadrius tricolor, and as they belong 
to different genera there is no vafid reason for the suppression of Horsfield’s 
name. I would suggest that the Australian species Lobibyx novce-hollandice 
and Lobibyx miles are more closely related to Rogibyx tricolor than to the 
African species they have hitherto been associated with. Whether the Malayan 
tricolor is generically distinct or not would seem debateable, as although I am 
utilising restricted groupings, the size of wattles and spurs would be scarceh’’ 
considered as governing genera in other families of birds. Seebohm noted 
that the species with large facial decorations had usually well-developed 
spurs, while spurless forms usually lacked wattles, but that exceptions 
occurred. If the wattles were developed to protect the eyes from the spurs, 
it is quite easy to conclude that similar forms might be evolved in distant 
localities, and consequently that the similarity of the African ''Lobivanellus'" 
to the Australian Lobibyx is due to convergence and is not a case of congeneric 
affinity. The Lapwings would form an interesting study as the three 
Australian genera suggest hypothetical relationship, thus : Lobibyx is very 
large with well-developed spurs and facial wattles — when adult it has long 
legs, but comparatively short ones in the nestling ; Zonifer is not quite as 
large, with a small facial wattle and only a hard Imob instead of a spur, and 
has short legs ; Erythrogonys is very small, has no facial wattle, and only 
an indistinct knob, though long legs. The last mentioned has a hind toe as 
the first, while Zonifer has no hind toe ; yet Zonifer approaches closer in 
coloration to Lobibyx than Erythrogonys does. From this and the study of 
other Lapwings, Seebohm’s conclusion that in this Order so-called structural 
differences are of less importance than coloration, seems to find confirmation. 
Certainly the Lapwings are more naturally grouped by means of coloration 
than by observing structural differences without aid of colour. 
Frohawk {Bull. Brit. Orn. Club, Vol. XIV., p. 62, 1904) found that the 
wing-formation in the sexes of Vanellus vanellus (Linne) differed : in the 
male the second primary equalled the fourth, the third being longest, while 
VOL. in. 
41 
