THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
first primary longest and secondaries very short. It is totally different to the 
wing of any of the Cockatoos. All the Cockatoos have square tails with very 
broad feathers. This bird has a very strongly wedge shaped tail of very 
narrow pointed feathers, the central pair extended beyond the others and 
much attenuated. 
I had determined to disassociate the species from the Cockatoos and its 
affinities appeared to me to lie nearer the Platycercine group. 
When D’Arcy Thompson examined the cranial osteology of the Parrots he 
found the skull to be “ similar to that of the Cockatoos in having the orbital 
bar completed by junction both with postorbital and with squamosal.” 
However, he at once noticed that notwithstanding this apparent agreement 
with the “ Cacatuine type,” this was certainly not of import as to its relation- 
ship, and observed: “It is clear that the skull of Calopsittacus, though at first 
sight very similar to, is different in several respects from, the true Cacatuine 
type. It is possible that these differences involve resemblances to the 
Platycercince, and this question will be further discussed below.” He continued 
later : “ The case of Calo'psittacus is a little more difficult. . . . On the whole 
I should say that, so far as cranial osteology goes, the position of Calopsiitacus 
is an open question, and that it is by no means impossible that it may really 
deserve to be grouped somewhere near Nympliicus and Melopsittacus He 
had just discussed Melopsittacus , deciding that although “ we have a complete 
orbit . . . precisely as in the Cockatoos,” . . . “it agrees in all the other 
characters mentioned above with the Platycercince , of which I have no doubt 
it is a real, though a somewhat aberrant member.” Of Calopsittacus he had 
also written : “ The nostrils are very large and near together as in Melop- 
sittacus , and are very different from the small, round, and distant nostrils 
of the Cockatoos.” 
The above confirmed my own conclusions deduced from examination 
of superficial features alone, and I have endeavoured to trace the opposite 
argument, but have been unable to do so, as I find that Salvador i included 
this species in the family Cacatuidce without stating his reason for so doing. 
Reichenow, the previous monographer, placed it in the family Platycercidce 
next to Melopsittacus, as also did Gould. Finsch associated it with the 
Cockatoos on the ground that the head was crested. I cannot regard this 
as a valid reason at all, especially as all the other characters are so opposed 
to the association. I have left my family in juxtaposition to the Cockatoos, 
but do not think this is correct. I hope that these remarks will incite some 
Australian Ornithologist to undertake a comparative examination of the 
osteology of this common bird with Melopsittacus , Platycercus. and the 
“ Cacatuine ” genera Eolophus, Ducorpsius, etc. Specimens of these could be 
236 
