CLIMACTERIC. 
The wings are long, the first primary short, about half the length of the 
second, which is equal to the fifth, and these are little less than the third and 
fourth which are longest; the eighth and ninth are comparatively shorter 
and are equalled by the secondaries which are fairly long. 
The tail is long and little rounded, the shafts of the feathers normal, 
not stiffened and pointed as in the normal Treecreepers. 
The legs are short with the tarsus booted in front and behind, the tarsal 
covering consisting of two plates only ; the feet are small, the anterior toes 
rather delicate, the third toe very large ; the hind-toe and claw is longer than 
the middle toe and claw; the outer toe equal to the inner toe and claw and 
the outer toe and claw a little longer than the middle toe alone. The middle 
and inner toes are united at the base until almost the first joint, but although 
this has been in some cases emphasized as semisyndactylism it is almost the 
normal passerine state. 
This peculiar form was first named from a painting by Latham as a 
Certhia, but was first described from specimens by Vieillot, who classed it in 
his genus Petrodroma, noting that the diagnosis of his genus must be amended, 
as in his new species P. bailloni the bill was shorter than the head. Almost 
simultaneously Temminck examined the two species named by Illiger in MS. 
some years previously and introduced the new genus Climacteris. He later 
figured these two, and Swainson considered they were male and female of the 
same species and proposed a new specific name for the combination. Selby 
indicated the Swainsonian complex as the type of the genus, and Gray, when 
he designated C. picumnus Temminck as type of the genus, probably inadver¬ 
tently cited both figures. Later, Gray named C. leucophcea as the type, and 
I blundered badly in accepting this writing “ by original designation ” and 
thus when I separated the two species, hitherto confused, into two genera I 
named C. picumnus as the type of my new genus Neoclima. 
F. E. Howe has recently reviewed this group and has concluded that one 
genus is sufficient for the three forms that differ, and noted that C. rufa could 
not be classed in Whitlocka, but might constitute a fourth. This indicates 
another mistake, which I had noted, but not yet rectified, as C. rufa is 
undoubtedly a “ Neoclima ” as some field workers had pointed out. 
As there are three groups, whatever their ultimate value may prove to 
be, it was necessary to provide a new generic name for the species “ leucoplioea 
Latham= bailloni Vieillot= scandens Temminck” which I named Cormobates. 
The geographical distribution of the three groups is interesting: 
Climacteris (i.e., Neoclima olim) ranging along Southern Australia from East 
to West: Whitlocka, Northern Australia from East to West, and Cormobates 
=Climacteris of my 1913 “List,” Central Australia ranging to the coastal 
83 
