LAZULENA. 
It may here be explained that in this essay I do not develop the 
methods employed by Miller in his Revision'^ where he has given calcula- 
tions of the ratio of certain items. Had these been prepared they would 
have undoubtedly emphasized the facts herewith exposed, but these seem 
sufficient, especially if the birds are examined from a careful and un- 
prejudiced point of view. It is difficult to show by means of figures the 
differences seen in the bills of the groups of Kingfishers as this feature 
has become so generalised : while the same remark applies to the feet, 
the small tarsus and peculiar toe formation being very general and 
featureless. The wing is also long with little graduation. As regards 
structure, there is more difference in Halcyonopa and Halcyon than would 
appear between Halcyon and Chelicutia^ wliile the truth is the two former 
are very closely allied, the two latter distantly related. 
Alcedo coromanda Linne is the most interesting species in the group. 
Although included in Halcyon its appearance instantly denies the associa- 
tion. Its subspecies have recently been determined by Oberholser {Proc. 
U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 48, pages 639-657, May 18, 1915), who used for it the 
generic name Entomotheray concluding; “ The present species is without 
doubt generically distinct from Alcedo senegalensis Linnaeus, the type 
of Halcyon Swainson. It differs as follows : Bill much larger in every way 
(relatively as well as actually) ; exposed culmen about half the length 
of the wing instead of much less : tip of culmen more distinctly decurved ; 
gonys more upcurved ; culmen less sharply ridged ; gonys less sharply 
keeled ; scutellae of tarsus much smoother ; and first (outermost) primary 
much shorter than the seventh, at most not longer than the eighth.” 
Previously, anatomical writers as Beddard and Mitchell had conceded 
generic rank to the species using the name Calialcyon. No one that I have 
noted has drawn attention to the correct association of the species, 
namely, with Ceyx ; and its transference from the Dacelonidce follows. I 
would then conclude that the Ceycine species would include this, and 
that a subfamily (? family) Geycince be recognised. To support this con- 
clusion I draw attention first to the colouring, which is like that of the 
“ red Ceyces,” then the bill features, next the feet, and lastly the wii|gs. 
It is strange that so obvious an association was not hitherto proposed: 
apparently the size of the species and the presence of the hind toe have 
been the factors, but these are not comparable with the above. Thus 
the bill agrees in size with that of Halcyonopa but is distinguishable 
by its flatter Ceycine formation, the lower mandible being also shallower : 
it agrees in proportion to the wing with that of Halcyonopa. The tarsus 
is weakly or obsoletely scutellate, showing its alliance with the unsealed 
161 
