ALCEDINIFORMES. 
are very many details given, few, if any, being of great value alone, but 
on the whole worthy of consideration. It is characteristic of these extra- 
Passeriform groups that minute featimes are grasped and developed as of 
subfamily rank, while they are denied in the Passeriformes even subgeneric 
value. Throughout the “characters” items are considered which would 
scarcely be mentioned if these had been Passeriform birds. Coloration 
is quoted in detail, not as colour-pattern, but as relative, though it must 
be admitted that really colour-pattern is concerned in this group with relative 
coloration. A quaint conception of ideas is expressed thus : “ The osteological 
characters are presumably rather uniform throughout the group, but, 
unfortunately, I have had for examination only the skull of Alcedo ispida.^^ 
The reasoning shown in this statement is inexplicable. 
The rest of the Kingfishers, save the “ old ” genus Geryle, are 
classed together in a subfamily Ddcelonince, and the diagnosis of this group is 
even more complex than the diagnosis of the preceding Alcedininoe. Halcyon 
is noted as providing exceptions, but Halcyon as used by Sharpe is not 
homogeneous. This is recognised by Miller, but material was not present 
and interest lacking to indicate the faults in Sharpe’s grouping by generic 
separation. Attention is continually drawn to the discrepancies by such 
statements as the following : “ In all others except Halcyon.’^ “ The wing 
is usually decidedly rounded. In some species of Halcyon the tenth primary 
is as long as the ninth, these two quiUs being the longest, but in all other 
genera the outermost quill is shorter than the fifth, usually conspicuously so, 
and shorter than the fourth in all but Todirhamphus and Dacelo.'^ “ The 
variation in the primary formula in Halcyon is most remarkable,” etc. I will 
deal more with the species of “ Halcyon ” later under the genus name 
Cyanalcyon. It must be understood that the above remarks are not put 
forward in any way in disparagement of Miller’s work or conclusions, 
both of which I strongly approve, but merely to show that there is still 
much to be done in the matter from an extra- American point of view. As 
instance. Miller lists the species of which he examined skins and skeletons, 
and among the latter Dacelo gigas is the only Australian representative. 
He also states : “ The natural grouping of the genera in the Dacela^inoe 
is a matter of considerable difficulty, and no arrangement can be considered 
final until the internal anatomy has been examined.” I quite agree with 
this, as the relationship of the Dacelonine species referred to “ Haley on'' 
certainly needs careful consideration. 
VOL. VIX. 
81 
