THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
is obvious that Halcyon and Todirhamphus are very closely related, while Dacelo, 
Choucalcyon, and probably Glytoceyx form a natural group, but the exact 
positions of the remaining genera (of the Daceloninoe) is a question for future 
determination.” 
Miller pursued (p. 274): “The majority of large groups of birds (orders or 
suborders) are consistently either eutaxic or diastataxic, without any exceptions 
as far as they have been examined. (Birds which have the fifth secondary present 
are termed eutaxic or quintocubital and when this quill is missing the terms 
diastataxic or aquintocubital are used.) In only three famihes are both styles 
of wing known to occur. These are the Columbidce {Peristeridce of Sharpe), 
the Alcedinidce and the Micropodidce. In the Pigeon and Swifts the character 
always coincides "with the limits of currently recognised genera but varies 
with the subfamilies. . . . There remains in the Kingfishers only a single 
genus containing both forms of wing. This is the large and polymorphic 
Halcyon the species of which fall into several minor groups, differing remarkably 
in the wing-formula as well as in the form of the bill and in coloration, and the 
character of the fifth secondary holds good in each of these sections as far as it 
has been investigated. . . . Mitchell uses generically the name Sauropatis for 
the four diastataxic species examined by him. As Halcyon is at present the only 
genus among birds known to contain both styles of wing, there is little doubt 
that when this character is determined in all the species it will be practicable 
and desirable to recognise generically one or more of the many names, including 
Sauropatis, currently synonymised under Haley onP 
In Mitchell’s essay {Ibis 1901, p. 97), only a few species were examined 
so that while we can accept the four species he names, cMoris, sancta, sordida, 
vagans, as being diastataxic there would be little reason for considering them 
congeneric without further confirmation. As a matter of fact Mitchell’s 
results show once again the value in systematics of careful skin examination 
as these four are obviously congeneric to a genus splitter from consideration 
of superficial features alone. They were associated by Cabanis and Heine when 
he introduced Sauropatis and the association has since been recognised by 
Gray, Salvadori, etc. Unaware of Miller’s work and quite independently 
I had examined the Austrahan “ Halcyon ” as to their generic affinities and 
in the Austral Avian Record Vol. I, Dec. 24, 1912 (Miller’s paper was only 
pubhshed in New York on Sept. 12, 1912) I had concluded, p. 108, 
“ Sauropatis Cabanis und Heine, Mus. Hein., Vol. II., p. 162, 1860. 
Type, Halcyon sanctus, Vigors and Horsfield 
and 
Cyanahyon Bonaparte, Consp. Vol. Aniso, p. 9, 1854. 
Type (by sub. desig.) Halcyon pyrriiopygia Gould ; 
146 
