DENDEOCYGNA. 
of them has led me to believe that they represent a distinct subfamily 
of themselves, and this subfamily I have duly characterised in the afore- 
said work, which will appear in due course, (p. 211.) This memoir, when 
published, wiU, on thirty-five plates, give figures of skulls and other parts 
of the skeleton of a large number of the Anseres from various regions of 
the world.” 
As at the same place Shufeldt has considered Anseranas and Cereopsis 
as only of subfamily value, it can be deduced that these Tree-Ducks 
show important anatomical differences correlative with their superficial 
distinguishing features. 
Although Gould in his Handbook sank Leptotarsis as a synonym of 
Dendrocygna, and Salvadori in the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum 
did not recognise the former genus, I find differential characters quite as 
pronounced as have been made use of in maintaining other Anatine genera. 
As a matter of fact, Salvadori has admitted colour to be the chief factor 
in recognising some Anatine genera. 
I find Leptotarsis (which I have re-named Gtenanas on account of a 
prior Leptotarsus) to differ in its shorter deeper differently-formed bill, its 
longer wings with much longer hard-feathered tail, which is much longer 
than the metatarsus, and the latter is exceeded by the middle toe ; these 
proportions are reversed in Dendrocygna. 
61 
