Mr. H. Seebohm on the Genus Cursorius. 121 
It is not surprising that even sucb a compact interlaced 
genus as Cursorius should have had its share of ill usage at 
the hands of the “ splitters 99 ; but it seems to me that the 
only natural mode of subdivision is to regard the Coursers with 
a band across the breast as one group, leaving the remainder 
to form another group, each containing five species. 
The ancestors of the latter of these groups were probably 
resident in the Mediterranean subregion during the last 
Interglacial Period. During the cold winters of the Glacial 
Period which followed, one party emigrated to India, and 
are now represented by C. coromandeticus . A second party 
emigrated to South Africa and became C. rufus and C . sene - 
galensis, the former in the south and the latter in the west ; 
whence, after the two species became differentiated, the latter 
gradually extended its range until it overlapped that of the 
former. The third party, instead of emigrating, adopted 
migratory habits, though not on a very extensive scale ; and 
C. somalensis is probably the result of a small migratory 
party which overshot its mark and finally settled in Somali¬ 
land. The three tropical species (the two Ethiopian and 
the one Oriental) have probably altered least in appearance, 
as they have altered least in climate and habits, whilst C. 
gallicus has altered most. 
Precisely in the same way the banded Coursers that have 
the most southerly range have altered least, whilst the only 
one (C. cegyptius ) which ranges into the Palsearctic Region 
has altered most. 
those birds, or that he was ignorant of Sundevall’s classification of them. 
Cursorius cegyptius is absolutely placed in a different family to that which 
contains its nearest allies. It appears in the family Charadriinae, with 
the incorrect character 11 tarsi reticulati,” whilst the other Coursers are 
placed in the family Otidinae, and are correctly described as being pro¬ 
vided with u tarsis transv. scutatis.” A systematist who relies solely on 
external characters ought at least to describe them correctly. The verdict 
of posterity will probably be that Sundevall’s classification of birds is a 
literary curiosity and nothing more. 
SER. V.-VOL. IV, 
R 
