MICRALCYONE. 
Kingfishers and was inclined to allow coloration as a generic character, and 
went so far as to place cyanipectus in Alcyone and philippensis in Ceyx, while 
admitting these might be different sexes of the same species. He emphasised 
the point that the habits were the chief distinction between Alcyone and 
Ceyx, and in view of ignorance of these would call the red-backed birds Ceyx, 
the blue-backed ones Alcyone. Salvadori objected to this classification, and 
subsequently Sharpe relegated everything to Ceyx save the two Australian 
species. He suggested that anatomical study might give definite characters 
and I emphasise this view. I further conclude that more than one diverse 
group is expressed by “ Ceyx,"*" and the names I have proposed will assist in 
discriminating these. Thus, Miller wrote ; “ Ceycopsis is a weakly characterised 
genus, being perfectly intermediate between Ispidina and Ceyx, differing 
from the former only in the slightly shorter second toe.” As I judge it, the 
resemblance between Ispidina and Ceycopsis is purely superficial and that 
the latter is closely allied to Ceyx, while the former has little relationship. 
Further, the interrelationship of the red and the blue species is problematical 
whether they be fisheaters or not. Judging from the bill structure, if the bill 
of Alcyone be that of a fisheater then “ Ceyx ” solitaria would be also a fisheater 
and also the “ leucogaster ” species of Ispidina which I have called Ispidella. 
Sharpe, in his “ Monograph,” gave a Map of the Alcedinidce, and most of the 
above points are suggested in this Map in an indirect manner. If these 
small “ Ceyx ” were criticised as Miller has dealt with the American “ Ceryle^' 
I think we would find just as much diversity among the species as he did with 
the species of Ceryle, in details which I have not dealt with. I am convinced, 
however, that my classification would be confirmed by such an examination, 
as I have carefully criticised the superficial features of the species. 
99 
