MUSCICAPID^E. 
Timeliidce). Flycatchers, Warblers, Thrushes and ‘ Timeliidce ’ form one 
large family ; the supposed sections generally looked upon as families cannot 
be limited ; on the other hand, when uniting such different forms as Fly- 
catchers, Thrushes, Warblers, Chats, etc., it is, of course, more difficult to 
give a short diagnostic description of this assemblage. All that can be said 
is, that the Muscicapidce, as here conceived, have the following characters in 
common : They are ten-primaried Oscines, varying in size from that of a 
Thrush to a Chiffchaff.' The bill is very variable, thin and pointed, wide and 
flattened, or like an ordinary Thrush’s beak. There are generally some 
distinct rictal bristles, often strong and well developed, sometimes obsolete. 
Tail-feathers 12, in a few cases 10. Insectivorous and vermicivorous (sic). 
Thrushes and some Warblers partially frugivorous. Cosmopolitan.” 
I cannot recognise a member of the “ family ” from such a peculiar 
diagnosis, which does not disqualify many non-Muscicapine birds, nor deter- 
mine any species as definitely of the family. 
Another remarkable feature follows in the “ Key to genera of family 
Muscicapidae,” where colour alone is given as the diagnostic of most of the 
genera, although the author has consistently combated the usage of colour- 
genera. Is this to be construed as the admission of his conversion ? 
It would have been more beneficial to science had he boldly made the 
announcement instead of introducing it in this manner. 
However, it is not worth while discussing the above family association, as 
it is quite unscientific, and certainly not useful. 
Newton, who could scarcely be claimed as a splitter, but who was 
certainly a philosophical ornithologist, suggested the recognition of distinct 
subfamilies, such as the Petroicince, and Pachycephalince, and I would add 
Rhipidurince, Seisurince and Gerygonince, which might later and better be 
regarded as families. 
61 
