THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
About forty years ago two anatomists proposed all kinds of groupings 
of birds by the investigation of one item alone, and though the absurdities 
caused the dismissal of the groupings, the features they dealt with are still 
utilised in text books as if of great value, instead of being comparatively 
valueless. Newton, the great critic, reviewing these attempts, wrote: “It 
is hopeless to attempt to arrive at a natural classification of Birds by a 
mechanical arrangement of even a great number of alleged leading characters. 
More may be expected from the combination of various taxonomic arrange- 
ments, each of which has been based upon a single organic system without 
reference to other organs. Of course, every one of such one-sided attempts will 
occasionally show a rather perplexing face, but each of them will bring to light 
some unexpected points of resemblance between certain groups ; and, while 
restricting ourselves to one organic system, we are more likely to understand 
which points are given to modifications through mode of life, food, habit, and 
surroundings, and which remain least affected, and therefore are indicative of 
relationship. Let us then combine the several one-sided arrangements. They 
will each of them contribute something good or certain, and thus help to settle 
the great question. Reasoning from a broad basis of facts will do the rest.” 
When I concluded that colour pattern was one of the most valuable items 
in bird-grouping I was basing my conclusion upon the fact that it was, in the 
groups dealt with, a point “ least affected ” by “ mode of life, etc.,” and “ there- 
fore indicative of relationship.” Further study has confirmed that view and it 
appears one to have been continually accepted, without definite declaration, 
in the grouping of Passeriform birds. It is more or less useless to refer to text 
books in this connection, as through the influence of the older anatomists groups 
are characterised by such terms as “ Oil gland nude,” “ skull segithognathous,” 
“ one carotid, left,” “ no biceps slip,” which mean little or nothing to the 
ornithologist who has to deal with skins and not much more to anyone else. 
There are no Woodpeckers in Australia, but should an Australian meet 
with one here is the definition : — “ Feet zygodactyle ; aftershaft small or 
elementary ; oil gland tufted. Muscle formula of leg, AXY (AX) ; gall bladder 
elongated ; skull without basipterygoid processes.” Surely it is time to 
provide some more reasonable kind of guide to bird study than such 
inadequate terminology, when it is stated that the group above referred to 
shows distinctive external features so that members are recognisable at sight 
without recourse to the above definition. 
Sunde vall’s dictum: “It is a common notion, but one which is entirely 
false, that anatomical or internal characters are always better and more certain 
than external ones,” is perfectly true. When this is fully grasped by ornitho- 
logists we may presume to anticipate a scheme of classification which may be 
2 
