SCiEOPH^THON. 
the feet. Beddard concluded : “ There is no doubt that Phceton 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 ” {Struct. Classif. 
Birds, p. 417, 1898). Throughout Beddard shows his conclusions regarding 
the inter-relationship of the birds to be imperfect, and PhcBthon seems to be the 
form which does not easily undergo reconciliation. If it has to be included 
in the Steganopodes through its affinity with Fregata, then its claim must be 
very slight indeed. Superficially these two genera differ in every detail, 
even to the feet, and internally as much difference is recorded. Criticising 
the conclusions of Beddard and Pycraft, the difficulty is to find out the 
points of similarity : any such I have noticed is common to forms not 
admitted as Steganopod. 
The bill of Phcethon is as unlike that of Fregata as a biU could be : 
in downy nestlings the dissimilarity is as pronounced. Were these two genera 
at all closely phylogenetically related the juveniles would show an approach 
in general characters. This is not seen. I suggest that Phoethon is more 
certainly an aberrant Lariform bird, and that the toti-palmation of the foot 
is not evidence of relationship with the Steganopod genera Phalacrocorax and 
Sula, and that Fregata and Phoethon be taken out of the Steganopodes. 
293 
