1 
Genus — E R 0 L I A . 
Erolia Vieillot, Analyse Nouv. Omith., p. 55, 1816 Type E. ferruginea. 
Also spelt — 
Erolia id., Galerie d’Ois., Vol. II,, p. 89, 1825. 
(Erolia id., ib., pi. 231. 
Acrolia Teinininck and Laugier, Planch. Col. d’Ois., Vol. V., pi. 510, note, 1830. 
Falcinellus Cuvier, Regne Anim., Vol. I., p. 486, 1816 . . Type E. ferruginea. 
Pelidna (not Cuvier, 1816) Billberg, Synops. Eaunse 
Scand., Vol. II., pt. i., p. 161, 1828 . . . . Type E. ferruginea, 
Ancylocheilus Kaup, Skizz. Entwick-Gesch. Nat. Syst., 
p. 50, 1829 . . . . . . . . . . . . Type E. ferruginea. 
Also spelt Ancylochilua Agassiz, Index Univers., p. 21, 1846. 
Small Waders with long decurved bills, long wings, short tails, short legs, 
and short toes. 
The long slender culinen is decurved, with the groove in the upper mandible 
extending almost to the tip, which is not expanded. The culmen is longer 
than the metatarsus, and almost exactly twice the length of the middle toe. 
The wings are long and pointed, the first primary longest. The tail is short, 
much less than half the length of the wing and not much longer than the 
culmen. The metatarsus is short, about three-fourths the length of the 
culmen ; it is regularly scutellate, both in front and behind. The toes are 
all cleft to the base, the middle toe about two-thirds the length of the 
metatarsus ; a long hind toe present. 
The genus Pelidna, which has been admitted by most writers who have 
utihsed restricted genera, is very close to this : the long decurved bill is some- 
what more compressed and generally deeper at the base, with the tip a little 
more expanded and faintly punctulate, the legs and feet a httle shorter. 
I mention this, as to me the distinctions seem very finely drawn when by the 
same writers such forms as Vetola and Li7nosa, Iliornis and Totanus, are lumped. 
There seems to me to be more difference between P. da^nacensis Horsfield and 
P. 7ninuta Leisler than between Pelidna and Erolia. It is probable that the 
expanded punctulate tip of the former is responsible for their differentiation, 
and consistently with the methods here adopted I would unhesitatingly accept 
these as distinct. The lumping of the straight-biUed forms with these curve- 
biUed ones, which I admitted in my “ Reference List,” of course cannot be 
defended. As there has been much discussion as to the exact status of the 
generic name Erolia, I herewith give extracts from the original introduction. 
264 
