LAZULENA. 
in which the Australian TodirhampM have hitherto been placed.” Under 
Cyanalcyon he added : “ They are all highly coloured, and differ but little 
from the TodirhampM, with which they have been hitherto associated.” 
Sharpe, retrogressively replaced the Australian species in the genus 
Halcyon and in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XVII., 
separated Halcyon from Todirhamphus by such a character as — 
“ Bill compressed . . . . . . . . . . Halcyon 
Bill flattened . . . . . . . . . . Todirhamphus” 
The range of the former genus was given : “ From Palestine and Asia 
Minor to Persia. Throughout the whole of Africa and the Australian and 
Indian Regions to China, the southern islands of Japan, and Manchuria.” 
Fifty-three species and many subspecies were recognised: while Todirhamphus 
was restricted to the “ South Sea Islands, Samoan and Society Islands,” four 
species being allotted thereto. 
Sharpe’s conclusions were accepted as against Gould’s, the monographer 
being considered as more likely to be correct than the general student. In 
the present case, however, it appears that the monographer had indulged, 
in this case, in lumping, a rare failing in such a worker. 
In his “ Revision ” Miller did not deal with this case of lumping in detail, 
though apparently aware of the heterogeneity of the genus as he wrote : “ The 
variation in the primary formula of Halcyon is most remarkable. The tenth 
primary is in some species much shorter than the first, while in others the 
tenth and ninth are equal and longest. There are doubtless few if any other 
genera of birds in which this range of variation is equalled. There is little 
doubt, however, that this large genus of over eighty forms, by far the largest 
in the family, is divisible into at least two genera, as it includes both eutaxic 
and diastataxic groups, and there are also differences in form and coloration. 
. . . While the question of generic distinction in the Alcedinince and Dacelo- 
ninoe is beyond the scope of the present paper, some random remarks on the 
subject suggest themselves and a few characters often overlooked in systematic 
works m*ay be mentioned. The very large and dominant genus Halcyon is 
remarkable not only for the great number of species (three or four times that 
of Tanysiptera, the next largest genus of Dacelonince) and wide geographical 
distribution (the only genus of the subfamily found in Africa, where it is well 
represented), but also for the striking variations in the relative length of the 
primaries and the presence or absence of the fifth secondary. Halcyon is 
evidently a generalised form and approaches the other subfamilies more closely 
than any other genus of its group. In the absence of a backward process 
to the lacrymal it differs from Dacelo and Ramphalcyon (and doubtless other 
genera) agreeing with Alcedinince {Alcedo at least) and the Cerylinoe .... It 
VOL. vn. 
145 
