STREPERA. 
even on the seashore, at others on the most sterile plains, far distant from 
water ; grasshoppers and insects of every order are eaten by them with avidity, 
and to these grain seeds and fruits are frequently added ; they hop with 
remarkable agility over the broken surface of the ground, and leap from 
branch to branch with great alacrity ; their flight is feeble and protracted, 
and they seldom mount high in the air, except for the purpose of crossing a 
gully, or for passing from one part of the forest to another, and then merely 
over the tops of the trees ; during flight they usually utter a peculiar shrill 
cry, which is frequently repeated and answered by other birds of the same 
troop, for they mostly flit about in small companies of from four to six in 
number, apparently the parents and their offspring of the year.” 
Having failed to find anything of value in the Myology, Leach referred 
to the pterylosis of Strep era and was rewarded by getting evidence of some 
value, the pterylosis of Strepera agreeing with that of Gymnorhina and Cracticus 
and disagreeing with that of the Raven in the feathering of the dorsal tract. 
Nothing was gained by examination of the convolutions of the intestines, 
all the birds shoving agreement in this respect. The palatal structure was 
then observed, and in this Strepera agreed with Gymnorhina in showing a 
palate of a compound segithognathous type, though not so strongly developed 
as in that genus. Parker first recorded this feature and upon it founded his 
<c Austro -coraces,” and here it is very interesting to record once more the 
confirmation of external features by the study of internal characters. Thus, 
I have indicated that my study led me to the conclusion that Strepera was 
the least modified of the three groups, Cracticus the most, but C. destructor, 
the one studied by Leach, the least of the Cracticoid ( s . str.) series. I suggest 
here the comparison of the palate of N eostrepera which should provide interest 
in that it shows an early Strepera modified in another direction to that of 
Cracticus. ,\ 
It will be noted that Leach never once discussed the suggested relation- 
ship of this group to the Laniidse. This is disappointing, because even if 
there is no true Lanius in Australia he might have commented upon Artamus 
for instance, a common and typical Australian form which has been referred 
to the Laniidae and has been shown to possess suggestive skeletal skull features. 
As regards the family name, Cracticidse must be used as already pointed out, 
and it may be left near the Laniidse until further investigation takes place 
as to the relationships between Laniidae and Cracticidse and, say, Artamidae. 
As regards the suggested grey ancestral form, the problem of the rufescent 
Melloria is significant ; if that red phase be a really ancestral phenomenon, 
then the distinctness between Melloria and, say, Strepera is well marked, but 
Macgillivray has recorded rufous-looking specimens of Cracticus nigrogularis , 
403 
