FREGATA. 
feet, it offers so many peculiarities externally that its association with the 
other members of the Order has caused much doubt. The investigations of 
the anatomy of this aberrant group have all been carried out under the 
prejudice of the toti-palmation of the feet, yet all the investigators have 
recorded sufficient differences to negative the reference, while confirming it. 
Many have indicated suggestive relationships with the Procellarii formes, 
but have been compelled to minimise these and exaggerate the Steganopode 
affinities. Externally the bill somewhat recalls that of a procellarian bird. 
Pycraft wrote upon the Steganopodes as a natural group in the Proc. Zool. 
Soc. (Lond.) 1898, pp. 82-101, and though he concluded that this was so, a 
criticism of his statements does not influence me in confirming the conclusion. 
The following clauses do not seem to be sufficiently explained away: 
“ In the sternum of the Steganopodes , . . save in Phmthon and Fregata. 
. . . In Phoethon the carina is of the same form, but continued backwards 
farther than in any other Steganopod save Fregata. . . . The sternum of 
Fregata is unique. . . . The pelvis of PhcBthon and of Fregata closely resemble 
one another, and both differ much from that of any other Steganopod. . . . 
What is more to the purpose is the fact that there are many points of 
resemblance between the pelvis of Fregata and that of certain Procellarice, 
e.g. Bulweria. . . . The tarso-metatarsus in aU save Fregata. . . . Save in 
PJicBtJion and Fregata (the hypotarsus). . . . All, save Phoethon and Fregata, 
have lost the vomer.” 
Beddard had written : “So different are the skull characters of Phmthon 
from those of the typical Steganopodes that, were it not for Fregata, the bird 
would have to be ignominiously expelled from the Order. This catastrophe 
is averted by Fregata, the skull of which, as will have been gathered from the 
foregoing remarks, serves to link Phcethon with the Cormorants, Gannets and 
Pelicans.” {P.Z.S. 1897, pp. 292-3.) 
In the Structure and Classification of Birds 1898, p. 417, Beddard 
summarised: “There is no doubt that Phcethon is very different from the 
other genera of the group ; indeed, if it were not for Fregata it would be 
difficult to avoid removing it altogether.” 
I can see no relationship whatever between these two. Examination 
of the bills of downy nestlings of these genera show them to be essentially 
different, while the feet are extraordinarily dissimilar. The bill of the 
juvenile Fregata suggests that of a young petrel, but it may be that the 
resemblance is due to convergence only. The forked tail of Fregata is quite 
an abnormal feature, however it is regarded. The semi-palmation of the feet 
is quite as abnormal, while the position of the long hind toe disagrees with 
that of true Steganopodes. I would here suggest that unprejudiced study of 
237 
