Genus — PIEZ ORHYNCHUS. 
Piezorhynchus Gould, Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.), 1840, 
p. 171, July 1841. Type (by monotypy) . P. nitidus Gould. 
Also spelt — 
Pizorkinchus Finsch, Neu-Guinea, p. 168, 1865. 
Medium “ Muscicapine ” birds with long bills, long wings, long tail, small 
legs and feet. 
The bill is very long, thin and keeled, side slopes steep ; the under mandible 
is not flattened, but rami comparatively strong. The rictal bristles are small 
and insignificant, four in number ; the nostrils are situated at base obscured 
by frontal feathering. 
The wing has the first primary more than half the length of the second 
which is equalled in length by the tenth ; the fourth and fifth are equal and 
longest, the third and sixth a little shorter and subequal. The tail is almost 
square. The legs and feet are small and normal. 
The coloration of the sexes is different, the male shining blue-black above 
and below, the female reddish above with a shining blue-black cap and white 
below. 
When Sharpe split up the Monarcha series of birds he fell back upon 
this name as a substitute, and simply transferred the majority of the species 
to this genus name, though they were as badly placed here as under Monarcha. 
This was pointed out by Campbell in connection with the succeeding species, 
as he wrote : “ The Doctors of the British Museum have placed this and similar 
species under the genus Piezorhynchus, but if the study of oology be taken 
into account, I think they should have been retained under Gould’s classification, 
Monarcha. Moreover, the eggs of Piezorhynchus nitidus are totally different 
from those of either M. melanops, M. gouldi, or M. albiventris .” 
Ignoring this suggestion, Ogilvie-Grant, dealing with the birds of New 
Guinea (Ibis, Jubilee Suppl. No. 2), rejected Piezorhynchus altogether, and 
lumped the whole lot under Monarcha again. He gave no reasons for so doing, 
but was understood to base his results upon the intergradation of the species. 
Meanwhile he showed that one species he classed as Monarcha had been 
previously described as a Rhipidura. I deal with this under the genus Monarcha, 
but mention it here to indicate his generic limits, as I am sure no present-day 
Australian ornithologist would class Monarcha and Rhipidura together. It 
77 
