THE BIRHS OF AUSTRALIA. 
only with their own rather permanent and little changing weather conditions 
has caused them to seriously blunder when confronted with Australian birds. 
Many instances will later be shown. 
In the present Order the birds constituting it are all Ancient types, and 
as such have become fixed, showing several generic forms but not many easily 
discernible subspecific alterations. As a matter of fact, Ogilvie-Grant hardly 
recognised any, but then in his case a strong prejudice against such was 
allowed to obscure his judgment. 
The study of juvenile forms immensely helps in the determination of 
phylogenetic relationships, but such has not yet been undertaken seriously by 
any British ornithologist who should be able to command long series showing 
plumage growth from nestling to adult hut who generally cannot. The recent 
discussion with regard to the plumage changes of the Common Cormorant 
of the British Isles gives a clear confirmation of the preceding remarks. 
The Order Pelecaniformes is characterised by the nature of the feet, the 
toes being fully webbed, the hind toe being united to the inner toe by a web. 
The birds are mostly of large size, some very large and few are small : 
the bill obviously differs in the families, in some being stout, straight and 
conical, in others long, thin and hooked. In some families the bill has the 
nostrils obliterated in the adult, in others the nostrils are obvious. The 
wings are usually long, sometimes very long, while the tail may be long, 
short or very long, rounded, wedge-shaped or deeply forked. (Memo.— A 
forked tail never appears among the Anseriformes.) Gular pouches are 
a general feature, though sometimes obsolete, sometimes even absent. They 
are mostly marine birds, but one family consists of river-dwelling evolutionists, 
while others sometimes go far inland to breed, though the majority pass the 
time at sea and breed on isolated islands in congregations. Practically all 
are gregarious at the breeding-season. 
The apparent heterogeneity of such a grouping has constantly attracted 
thinking systematic workers, and no definite line of evolution has yet been 
suggested for some of the members. A recent attempt to satisfy queries was 
made by W. P. Pycraft in Proc. Zool. Soc. (Bond.) 1898, pp. 82-101, who 
concluded: “(1) All are closely related; (2) they cannot be broken up 
to form one or more suborders or subdivisions of equal value ; but that 
(3) they must be regarded as a whole, as a suborder . . .” 
It is quite impossible to accept Pycraft’ s conclusions upon his own 
premises, though they may be correct. The chief stumbling-blocks in the 
Order are Fregata and PhcBthon, and Pycraft does not satisfy the demands of 
either. Thus he writes : “ The most important witness to the integrity of the 
suborder is the skuU. Three types can be easily distinguished. . . . The 
154 
