Flycatchers

The Natural Arrangement and Relations of the Family of Flycatchers, or Muscicapidæ

Containing the Todies and Flycatchers, as is well known, form one of the great divisions of the insessorial or perching order, and are united on one side to the Ampelidæ or chatterers, and on the other to the Liniadæ or shrikes. The food of the chatterers, however, is almost exclusively confined to fruits; but one of the chief characteristics of the family now before us is that of feeding entirely upon insects, these are captured by the bill, during flight, in the same manner as that adopted by the swallows and all fissirostral birds. Their organization is consequently in strict conformity with this habit, and we shall see how beautifully nature has adapted it for such a life. The wings are not formed for such rapidity and celerity of movement as those of the swallows, since the flycatchers do not pursue their prey to any distance; but this deficiency is compensated by a very unusual breadth in the bill, the sides of which are furnished with long rigid bristles pointing forwards; thus provided, a flycatcher darts upon an insect with unerring certainty, since, if it fails to get a firm hold by its bill, the bristles standing out on each side confine the struggles of the victim, and at the same time prevent either the eyes or face being injured by the claws or wings of the insect. We have already seen their structure slightly developed among several groups of the warblers, and indeed the two families, as will subsequently appear, are so closely united, that the best ornithologists are perpetually confounding one with the other. A little attention, however, will show their true distinctions. Both are flycatching families, but with some remarkable differences; the warblers pursue the chase from tree to tree; they are perpetually wandering about and hunting up their game; whereas the true flycatchers are sedentary, they will choose some convenient station, generally near their nest, from which they watch for their prey, and where they will remain, with little variation, for hours; after every capture, they almost invariably return to the identical twig they before occupied. Now these totally opposite methods of procuring the same description of food, is marked by a difference equally striking in the conformation of the legs and feet. Those of the flycatching warblers (Sylviadæ), however broad may be their bill, or strongly bristled, are invariably longer, the toes larger and unconnected, and the whole structure adapted for that constant exercise and locomotion which belongs to the habits of the warblers; we see this in the Setophaga ruticilla, one of the broadest billed birds among the Sylviadæ. Now, as the true flycatchers, comparatively, have very little use for their feet, we consequently find that these members are formed in a very different manner; the leg is shorter, scarcely indeed exceeding the length of the hind-toe; the toes are particularly small, and (as an additional support to the bird in its sedentary mode of life) the two outer are more or less united, so as to give a breadth and a support to the sole of the foot which it would not otherwise possess. Nothing will illustrate their distinction better than taking an example. Let the student, therefore, compare the feet of the American Red-start (Setophaga rutcilla, Sw.), which is a flycatching warbler, with the feet of the common American Tyrannula rapax or wood-pierce flycatcher, and he will at once comprehend the force of the above distinction.

In regard to the name by which this family should be designated, we have been sadly perplexed, and this has chiefly originated from what we conceive to be the mistaken notions that have been entertained regarding the Todius viridis. Strictly speaking, the name of a group should always be derived from the typical genus; now if this rule was followed in the present instance, Eurylaimus (which is evidently the type of the whole family) should preserve the generic name of Todus, by which indeed it was known to all the Linnæan writers; the Todus viridis should have received another generic name, and the whole family might then be correctly termed the Todidæ; but these alterations would lead to so much confusion, that we have not ventured upon, much less do we recommend, their adoption. Again, as the whole of these birds are flycatchers, we might give that name to the family with great propriety, but if this idea is followed up, and the nomenclature of the genera and sub-families also changed, greater changes still more numerous and still more objectionable would follow. Eurylaimus must be changed for Muscicapa, and Muscicapa, as it now stands, should have a new name! Todus would thus be retained only as a genus, and no group would bear such a well known designation as would immediately remind us of birds with syndactyle feet; an idea, which, from long habit, we always associate with words modified from Todus. Under all these disadvantages to applying a strictly correct and uniform nomenclature, we hope that the generality of ornithologists will approve of the middle course we have now chosen: that is, of naming the family after that typical group which is the largest and best known in the family, and sinking Todus to its proper level. This plan, after all, is certainly not without objections, but it is attended with fewer alterations of received names than any other we could devise, and it therefore may be thought the best. On a former occasion, some years ago, we designated this family by the name of Todidæ, but it has been represented to us and perhaps with justice, that as the great majority of the birds are the Muscicapidæ of all modern systems, whether artificial or natural, it would save much misapprehension if that name was preserved on the present occasion, and this we have accordingly done.

The great majority of the flycatchers belong to the typical groups, which are so dissimilar from any of the chatterers, that they are in no danger of being confounded, even by the student; but in such as appear to be aberrant divisions, or, in other words, which connect the two families, the leading characters of both are in a greater or less degree united. The birds which occupy this intervening station have an organization which proves them to feed upon fruit as well as upon insects, and the proportion in which these two different regimens are combined is manifested by the structure of the mouth; the presence or absence of rigid bristles at the rictus or gape, is decisive of the bird being frugivorous or insectivorous; and when, as in the Piauhou or red-throated chatterer of authors, the gape and general form of the bill assimilates to the Ampelidæ, yet that the rictus has stiff bristles, we infer that such a bird, although habitually a fruit-eater, is likewise a devourer of insects. And this accordingly turns out to be the fact. In this and all the other types which shew a tendency towards the family we have just left, the feet are much the same as those of the genus Casmorhynchus: that is, the toes are more or less united at their base, the soles broad, and the lateral scales of the tarsi are very small and numerous; the gape also continues to be very wide and the bill strong, often thick, and although depressed, is never so completely flattened as in the typical Muscicapidæ; the few birds placed in the genera Psaris, Pachrynchus, and Querula, are precisely of this description, and but for the stiff bristles round the mouth, and their obvious affinity to other genera truly insectivorous, might be placed at once with the true fruit-eaters (Ampelidæ), was there any hiatus wherein they could be introduced. According to our views, however, such an hiatus does not exist, the passage from the Leiotrichinæ to the Ampelidæ, although many links to render it perfect are wanting, is yet sufficiently well marked out, and we therefore decide on placing these fruit and insect eaters within the confines of the Muscicapidæ.

One of the chief peculiarities of the flycatchers is certainly found in their short and weak feet, a structure beautifully adapted for their perching habits, but quite incompatible with the power of walking. Yet it must be remembered that this, as well as every other, natural group, must have a rasorial type, and we therefore find that one of the aberrant divisions of the Muscicapidæ is distinguished by the length and strength of the legs. In all other respects, however, these walking flycatchers preserve the characteristics of their family, and although the bills of some are less flattened than usual, the stiff bristles of the mouth sufficiently indicate their true relationship. It may be proper in this place to observe, that no typical Muscicapidæ, as here defined, have yet been discovered in that part of America which lies north of Mexico: The flycatching tribe, which formerly bore that name, having been removed out of this circle to the confines of the next, where they now form part of the, Tyranninæ or Tyrants. This timely hint may save the student muchtrouble; and when we come to treat of the family in question, the peculiarities which separate the Old from the New World flycatchers, will he fully explained.

The geographic range of this family in their preeminent typical examples, is almost confined to intertropical regions; to those countries, in fact, where insects which constitute their principal, if not their only food, are the most abundant. During the heat of summer, three, or perhaps four species migrate into northern and central Europe, build their nests and rear their young, but on the first approach of autumn they disappear and return to the more genial coasts of Asia Minor or Southern Africa. The aberrant divisions, with the solitary exception of one genus, are all peculiar to South America. The great-billed Eurylaimi are exclusively Indian, while the true Muscicapidæ, which comprise a greater number of species than are to be found in all the other divisions collectively, are distributed in nearly equal proportions over the hot latitudes of Africa, India, and New Holland; some few of very particular forms are found in Brazil, and others equally remarkable are restricted to the Australian province, but none, as we have already intimated, occur in North America.

From these preliminary remarks, the reader will be better prepared to understand the nature of the family which will now be investigated. As a whole, it is not what we should call a perfect group, because several of the connecting types are wanting; and this will always militate against every circular arrangement. On the other hand, these gaps are by no means wide; and although some of the primary divisions contain very few species, one of the most typical (Muscicapinæ) is remarkably perfect; this is peculiarly fortunate, in as much as it enables us to test the accuracy of the remainder, and almost to demonstrate, that however poor they may be in regard to their contents, the sub-families themselves are natural: these will now be explained under the names of,

1. Querulinæ;
2. Psarianæ;
3. Fluvicolinæ;
4. Muscicapinæ;
5. Eurylaminæ:

the three first constitute the aberrant group; the fourth, the sub-typical; and the fifth, the typical.

Of the Querulinæ we know but of two species, and even these differ so much, that we are obliged to consider them for the present as distinct types. One, the most remarkable, is the Piauhau chatterer of Le Vaillant, and it now forms the type of the genus

Querula

Linnæus and Brisson considered it as a flycatcher, on account of the stiff bristles of the mouth, but in all other respects this bird gives us the idea of a large strong billed chatterer. It is near twice the size of a thrush, measuring eleven inches; entirely black, except under the throat of the male, where the feathers are deep red and glossy; the bill is large, very strong, but considerably depressed, while the bristles, although short, are very stiff; the feet are remarkably short, small, and weak. It is not surprising that writers who are led to decide by outward and general similitudes, should have placed this singular bird in the same genus as its prototype, the Coracina scutata (Tern.), seeing that the colours of both are nearly the same. The Coracina, however, is merely the representative, among the crows, of Querula; its bill is high, compressed instead of depressed; and the feet, although very short, are remarkably strong; the lateral toes are likewise equal, while those of Querula are unequal: the bill, in short, of each bird, at once proclaims its family. Did the Piahau stand alone in the station we have assigned to it, we should have had much hesitation in removing it beyond the circle of the Ampelidæ, although quite ignorant what precise station it would hold in that circle. But fortunately there is another bird which is so clearly connected to Querula, yet is nevertheless such a decided flycatcher that our confidence in the arrangement we are now pursuing is greatly increased. We shall here insert the only species yet known of this genus.

The bird jut before alluded to forms the genus

Lathria

It is about the size of a thrush, entirely of a dull brownish olive, and having every appearance, at first, of being a tyrant flycatcher (Tyrannus). On examining it, however, more attentively, we detect some of the peculiar characteristics of the Piauhau, blended with the more strongly bristled rictus and front, the flatter and weaker bill, and the diminished stature of the tyrants. The structure of this bird, indeed, is peculiarly interesting, because it not only shows a decided affinity to Querula, but opens an obvious passage to the next sub-family by means of a second species, rather smaller, which has recently come into our possession, as if to confirm the locality in the series we had previously assigned to its congener. But the relations of nature are so intricate and ramified, that the more we investigate them, the more do they seem to multiply; and no sooner do we get over one difficulty with “toil and trouble,” but another comes to light; and this we find in the present instance; there is a curious dull coloured bird, about the size of a very small thrush, which we described some years ago under the name of Tyrannus calcaratus, on account of its having a series of little spines at its knees. Now this bird has so much the general aspect and colour of C. cinerea, that it might pass for the young, or a smaller race of the same species, but that the legs are rather longer, and the claws instead of being short and broad are, like all those of the genuine tyrants,—slender, lengthened, and very much curved. The Tyrannus calcaratus differs also very materially from the L. cinerea and the Querula by having the commissure of the bill, as in Tyrannus, perfectly straight, except of course at the tip, where it suddenly bends down with the hook. Now, in all the typical Ampelidæ, and in the two birds just mentioned, the commissure is invariably arched. It seems, therefore, that this resemblance between T. calcarata and Lathria cinerea must be looked upon as only analogical, seeing that the former bird, however disguised, has all the essential characters of the true tyrants, the strong and clasping scales of the tarsi alone excepting; we are more disposed to take this view of its affinities, because the passage from Lathria to Psaris seems to be sufficiently made out without the intervention of the bird in question.

We are now brought to the Psarinæ or black-caps, represented by the genus

Psaris

A more decided group than the preceding, and which makes a further step towards the typical characters of the genuine flycatchers. The general size of these birds is between that of a small thrush and a robin; and all the typical species are inhabitants of tropical America. They are conspicuous to ordinary observers, by their great heads and their thick depressed bill, the upper mandible of which has the very unusual character of being quite convex above, so that there is no culmen or ridge. The feet still retain the structure of the Ampelidæ, being weak, and protected on the sides of the tarsi by minute lateral scales; the wings also are long and ample. Of their manners, in a state of nature, very little is known. It would seem, however, from the observations of Azara, that the typical species, like many of the chatterers, are to be seen sitting on the tops of lofty forest trees, and the structure of their wings show that they are quick fliers. In those larger species which form the genus Psaris, the bill seems very powerful, and is so abruptly hooked at the tip, that it is not surprising that the Linnæan writers, and some of the moderns, placed the only species then known, Psaris cayana, with the tyrant shrikes (Tyranninæ). We suspect these birds to feed both upon insects and fruits, for several have rictal bristles, and their gape is very wide. There is a peculiarity in their colouring which deserves attention; four or five,—which from other circumstances we know to be distinct species,—are nevertheless coloured precisely alike; they are of that delicate light grey, so universally seen among the gulls, but with black heads and wings. Now, we explain this remarkable analogy by pointing to the part of the circle of Muscicapidæ where this group enters, and we shall then find that this station is precisely analogous to that which the Laridæ or true gulls appear to hold in the circle of the Natatores; the Natatores being itself represented among the Dentirostres by the family of Muscicapidæ. The large head, again, of all the Psarianæ reminds us at once of the Pachycephala among the chatterers, and on comparing the two family circles, those particular groups stand opposite to each other. It is right however to mention, that no such analogy can be traced between Querula and the swallow chatterers (Bombycillidæ), but then it may be as fairly supposed this want of conformity originates in ignorance of undiscovered birds, as in erroneous views. Time, however, will clear up such nice points which now lay open to controversy, and in the mean time we must endeavour to dispose the contents of imperfect groups, like the present, as near as we can to the course which nature has pursued in her more perfect groups.

Between Psaris and the next genus,

Pachyrhynchus

(A name which some erroneously have applied to both), there is such a beautiful series of connecting species, as to render it quite impossible to decide where one group ends and the other begins; although, if we look only to their typical examples, the difference is very striking. Several of the large Psari have a singular spurious quill, short and very slender, the use of which is altogether unknown, while in others the orbits and sides of the face are bare of feathers; it is by these nice but certain characteristics of species that we are able to distinguish the different sorts, which are all coloured alike. There are two or three birds even larger, which may possibly come in the range of this sub-family; they are from New Holland, and form the genus Sphecotheres of Vieillot; the size is larger than a thrush, and the bill is equally large and broad at the base with Psaris, yet it is much more compressed on the sides; the under mandible is strong, and there is a large naked space round the eyes; the wings, in general, are not unlike those of Psaris, but the tail is much longer; the feet are short and remarkably strong, the nostrils quite bare, and the rictus smooth. We confess, however, our belief, that the true affinities of this genus are not to be found in the present circle; that it has some relation, strictly so termed, to Psaris, is unquestionable, but we think that it is one of analogy rather than of affinity, and that Sphecotheres is the most aberrant type of the orioles, Oriolinæ, representing in that group, the genus Psaris. We incline the more to this view of the subject, because its position in this group seems to disturb the progression of forms between this and the sub-family we shall now enter upon.

The Fluvicolinæ or Water-Chats

constitute the last of these aberrant divisions of this family. As it not only forms the passage to the shrikes but also to the Sylviadæ (as the other side of the dentirostral circle), it consequently presents in its contents a considerable deviation from the general characteristics of its own family. The birds, in fact, are terrestrial flycatchers, preserving all the characters of their tribe except in the legs,—these members being large, high, and stout, adapted for constant exercise upon the ground, where these birds are almost invariably seen. We have no examples of this group in England, but we may gather some idea of their forms and habits by looking to the stone-chats of Europe. Along the Brazilian rivers and in all the flat and humid savannahs, these birds are seen running with great celerity in pursuit of insects, and moving their tail in the manner of our wheat-ear, which bird they further resemble in the black and white colour of their plumage. Such are the general habits of the whole group, but it comprises several genera, differing in the formation of the tail, the bill, and the wings. Of these the most curious is Alectura, first noticed by Azara under the name of Le Petit Coq. (Voy. iii. p. 447); its tail is broad, and, like that of our domestic fowl, it is laterally compressed and carried erect; in one species these feathers end in long naked filaments, and in another it is greatly forked. Near to these may be placed the long-tailed shrike-like flycatcher, another bird equally remarkable for the developement of the tail; it is called Yiperu by Azara, and is the type of the sub-genus Gubenetes. The fly-catchers, in general, are by no means a social family, yet nearly all of this division appear to live in small societies, frequenting, in little troops, the low marshy grounds of South America, where they keep up a loud discordant and disagreeable babbling; they are no less distinguished by these peculiarities than by their plumage, which is universally varied only with different shades of black and white. The whole group, as here characterised, is confined to tropical America. There are more birds referable to this group than to either of the two preceding, but it has been so completely overlooked by all systematic writers, with the exception of Azara, that it is very difficult at present to form a just idea of its contents.

In the foregoing remarks, the reader will perceive some peculiarities of the aquatic type, mingled, as it were, with those of the rasorial; nor is this the only instance where such an approximation is discovered. Great bulk, feeble and imperfect feet, and a fondness for water, are the three great indications of such vertebrated animals as belong to the first of these types; while strong and powerful feet, short but broad wings, and a harsh discordant voice, are chiefly to be found in those groups which represent the Rasores or fowls. Now each of these latter characters are possessed by the birds before us, to which they have superadded one, and but one, of the characters of the Natatores, namely, aquatic habits. Some highly interesting speculations arise out of this, too abstruse, however, for our present discussion. Certain, however, it is, that there is always one division of a large group like the present, which either directly or indirectly manifests an attachment to water; and as this is not seen, so far as we yet know, in the Querulinæ, it would naturally be expected in that aberrant division which stood on the opposite side of the circle. And accordingly we find it to be so. Querula has three of the natatorial characters, namely, great size (it is the largest bird in the whole family), a very broad and strong bill, and yet remarkably small and weak feet; but a fourth, the love of water, it seems not to have, so far as our imperfect knowledge of its manners extends. It must be remembered, also, that no animals which are merely analogical representations of a type, represent all the characters of that type; a moment’s reflection will show this to be a necessary law of nature; because, were it otherwise, such animals would no longer be representations, but actual examples of the type itself, in its full developement. Besides, we must not allow every little difficulty to turn us aside from what is evidently the path of nature. Of all the birds in this family, Querula obviously makes the nearest approach to the chatterers, and it is equally certain that the water-chats (Fluvicolinæ) make the nearest approach to the genuine flycatchers and to the tyrants. These two points, therefore, being incontestable, our business is to trace, as far as can be, the intervening series, and then to see how far the results accord with the general laws of nature.

The passage from the Black-caps to the Water-chats is effected, as usual, by a representation of the rasorial type. Of all known birds the Scissor-tail,¹ forming the genus

Gubernetes

comes nearest to Psaris cayana in the general character of its structure; it has, however, a very long forked tail, and amore perfect fissirostral bill,—that is, shorter, broader, and more triangular. On the other hand, its legs are large and strong, perfectly adapted for walking,—the lateral toes being even, and the claws, although sharp, very slightly curved; this structure of foot, in short, is exactly what we find in all the water-chats, but Gubernetes is the only type which still retains a small row of those minute lateral scales on the tarsi, which are so constant in all the groups we have yet mentioned; the stiff rictal bristles of the insectivorous birds are now fully developed, and we have obviously quitted all those groups which feed in some degree upon fruits. Azara is the only writer who says any thing of the habits of this remarkable bird, which we shall call the Swallow Black-cap.² Duringflight, it seems to open and close its forked tail; it frequents humid situations, associated in small flocks, and seeks upon the ground for worms and insects. Hence we see the use of its possessing strong feet and somewhat straight claws; thus combining the leading characters of the Psarianæ and the Fluvicolinæ.

From Gubernetes we are immediately led into the circle of the Fluvicolinæ by

Alectura

which is a no less remarkable type; three species only are as yet known, and these are very singular little birds; their size is not bigger than that of a robin, but their head is enormous from the quantity of feathers upon the crown, while the tail, as already remarked, is erect and compressed, very much like that of the cock. The bill and feet are both large in proportion, and give us such a miniature resemblance of those members in Gubernetes, that no doubt can exist on the close affinity of the two genera; for although, if our views are correct, they do not stand in the same circle, yet, as they form a union between both, their separation is only nominal. These “little cocks,” as Azara calls them, seem in their habits to be true water-chats, frequenting the open and humid sides of savannahs, where they search upon the ground for insects; occasionally, however, they exhibit a slight indication of the habits of the true flycatchers, by perching upon reeds or very low shrubs (never on trees), and catching insects as they fly near its station. It deserves to be noticed, that Azara, a decided opponent of technical systems, was yet too well versed in natural groups to confound these birds with the ordinary flycatchers; he consequently formed them into a distinct genus, without giving any other than a vernacular name. M. Vieillot, in the first instance, adopted Azara’s views, and termed the group Alecturus; but the prejudices of system and its technicalities made him subsequently abandon the name and the distinction, and he incorporated them with a confused assemblage of birds now passing under the general designation of Muscicapa. We must, therefore, cite M. Vieillot’s name to this genus, in contradiction even to himself; for had he paid due attention to the observations of Azara, or had given more than a hasty glance at the structure of the birds themselves, he would never have differed from his master and from himself. The Alecturi seem to be common in some parts of the southern provinces of Tropical America, but they are not met with in other localities.

The passage from Alecturus to the common tailed water-chats is not yet rendered unquestionable by a series of intervening forms; but there are some with long win and short triangular bills, to which we shall retain the name of

Blechropus

viewing them for the present as distinct from Fluvicolina. Of these we know four or five species, and although they do not exhibit very decided peculiarities as to structure, still it seems desirable to keep them distinct; they differ from Fluvicola and agree with Alectura in their large heads; their plumage is more or less deep black, with a concealed spot of white on the inner web of the quills, which only becomes suddenly conspicuous when the wing is expanded; the feet being smaller, and the toes rather shorter than in Fluvicola, would seem to indicate even more of the perching habits than are possessed by Alectura, while their singularity of plumage leads us to believe they must have also some peculiarity of manners. One of these we shall now figure.

It is evident that the bird last figured and described is very closely connected to the true water-chats, forming the genus

Fluvicola

the chief type of this sub-family. A great uniformity of plumage runs through all the species we have seen of this group, so that very many, we doubt not, have been overlooked or disregarded as varieties; the predominant colour is pure white, with deep black wings and tail; sometimes the whole or a part of the back and head is grey; the largest species is the Fluvicola nengeta, which is clothed in the same coloured plumage as the American mock-bird, while the smallest⁴ is so like the European Muscicapa atricapella, that it is not surprising the old ornithologists in their systems placed it immediately after that bird. The aspect of all these birds, in short, will remind every one of the stone-chats and wheat-ears, and thus will do away with the necessity of proving that they represent each other. One of the most remarkable species is the Fluvicola cursorial,⁵ because in this we see the tail, although not unusually long, is so much graduated as to assume something of the same shape and appearance as that of the next genus Rhipidura; another of the most typical species is the

We have now traced the greatest part of the circle of the Fluvicolinæ, yet there still remains two types undetermined; and one of these is the tenuirostral or grallatorial. This latter we consider to be represented by the Sylvia perspicillata of the old authors, a bird which was even known to Buffon, but which has hitherto been very imperfectly described, and never figured. It forms the type of our genus

Perspicilla

and we now annex a description of both sexes, procured in the southern parts of Brazil, where it is by no means common. Its relation to the water-chats is indisputable, for its entire organization bespeaks it a terrestrial bird, possessing something of the structure both of Fluvicola and of Alectura, yet exhibiting a strength of foot and a form of bill which separates it from both; the whole appearance of this bird, in fact, is very striking, as will be seen by the annexed figure.

It is rather larger than Alectura, and is more truly characteristic of a grallatorial form, from the excessive developement of those quill-feathers which lay over the others. Setting aside the universality of this fact among the typical waders, we see it in their representatives the larks (Alaudinæ), pepits (Anthus), wagtails (Motacilla), and numerous others. The structure of Perspicilla, therefore, although singular and unique in its own circle, is in the most perfect harmony with those groups it represents in other circles. The nakedness of its face and the weakness of the bristles round the mouth, reminds us of the typical Ampelidæ or chatterers, among which we have the only insessorial birds possessing white quill-feathers; we see its long legs, yellow bill, and fleshy orbits again repeated among the plovers (Charadriadæ) and similar naked appendages to the eyes occur among the caterpillar-catchers (Ceblepyrinæ), and certain todies. Now each and all of these are grallatorial types in their own circles, so that four at least of the leading types of the Fluvicolinæ may be considered determined; and we have only to wait for better information respecting that between Alectura and Fluvicolinæ, to pronounce this family so far to be complete.

We now enter upon the sub-family of the

Muscicapinæ, or Genuine Fly-Catchers

by far the most extensive and consequently varied group of this family. It is composed of those broad billed insectivorous little birds which dart upon their prey as it were from an ambush; they fix their station on the end of a branch or a projecting spray, from whence they suddenly dart upon such flying insects as come within a certain range, seldom making any attempt to pursue them, or to repeat another swoop if the first has been unsuccessful; sedentary habits, such as these, are not likely to call the feet of such birds into exercise, we consequently find that these members are always short and remarkably feeble in every part of their construction; the length of the tarsus, in fact, is very seldom more than that of the hind-toe and claw,⁶ and in those very few types where this proportion is not observed, the tarsi, although lengthened, are remarkably slender and the claws syndactyle, that is, more or less united together at their base. There is another peculiarity which seems very characteristic of all the types we have hitherto seen of the Muscicapidæ, where, notwithstanding the many variations in the form of the tail, 110 one instance can be cited of this member being forked. Attention also to the claws will enable the ornithologist to distinguish the genuine fly-catchers from the tyrant fly-catchers of America; in the latter they are invariably long, acute, and slender; so much so, indeed, as to make one believe they were intended to seize the prey of the bird; but this is not the case, although we are quite ignorant of the use of such a peculiar formation. The true fly-catchers, on the other hand, afford us not one recorded example of this structure, their claws are shorter, broader and much less acute; this difference, however, is not sufficient to distinguish all the tyrant fly-catchers, as some of the very small species, whose true affinities, in fact, are somewhat doubtful, possess the claws of the Muscicapidæ, but these latter never exhibit those of the Tyranninæ.

No circumstance is more remarkable, and certainly none more inexplicable, than that certain groups of birds, having a limited geographic distribution, should be distinguished from others of the same family (but inhabiting another continent), by a slight but invariable deviation in the form of their wings. This difference might be accounted for, if, upon further investigation, we had found that it was accompanied by a difference in the mode of flying or of capturing the food. But hitherto not the slightest variation has been detected, on these points, between the fly-catchers (Muscicapa) of the Old World and those of America. Nevertheless, so decidedly different is the structure of the wing in these two great geographic groups, that we may at once decide from this circumstance alone, whether a species we see for the first time is a New or an Old World fly-catcher. We drew the attention of ornithologists to this remarkable fact some years ago,⁷ and subsequent experience has not furnished us with a single exception to the rule. The common grey fly-catcher of Britain catches its prey in precisely the same manner, so far as I can discover, as do the little tyrants (Tyrannula) of Brazil, both sit upon a twig, dart at passing insects, and return to the same station; but the European species has the first quill-feather so small as to be spurious, or as it were elementary, while that of the other is three times as long, and the proportions of the remainder differing entirely from those of its congener. Now this spurious quill is the great and universal character of all the genuine flycatchers of Europe, Asia, Africa, and New Holland, while among those of, America not a single instance of such a structure has yet fallen under our observation.⁸ The student, therefore, if all other distinctions fail, has but to examine the wing of a fly-catching bird, to know at once whether it is a native of the New or the Old World; whether in fact it belongs to the genera hereafter-mentioned, Todus or Muscicapa; the first, with one exception,⁹ being an American, while the latter is an Old World group. But that the ornithologist may more clearly comprehend these distinctions, we shall take this opportunity of explaining them more fully.

The wings of the paradise fly-catcher, a most beautiful though common bird, will give us a perfect idea of that structure, which, with very slight variations, runs through all the Old World Muscicapinæ. The general form of this member, although by no means short, is nevertheless rounded; that is, the outermost feathers, instead of being the longest, as in the swallows, are much shorter than those which are nearest to the body, and, from being of different lengths, they are termed graduated. The first quill is small and spurious, being hardly half as long as the next; the second is half an inch shorter than the third; and this latter, again, is about three-tenths of an inch shorter than the fourth; the fourth, fifth, and sixth, being all of the same length, and longer than any of the others. This sort of wing, without any variation, is alike common to Muscicapa, Rhipidura, Seisura, Myagra, Monacha, and Platystera; in Hyliota there is a slight deviation; the second quill is longer, and the third almost reaches the end of the fourth; this departure from the typical structure prepares us for a second modification, as seen in the Muscicapa atricapilla of Europe and its allies; the first quill becomes smaller and is not one-third the length of the second, while the third is the longest of all. This structure of wing is much more pointed than that of the first we described: it has evidently greater power, and we consequently find it has been given to a group of birds which are known, like our grey flycatcher, to migrate. Were it not for the bristled and depressed bill of some of those latter, their feet are so unusually strong in comparison to those of their congeners, and their wings so very similar to those of the Stone-chats, that we should be almost tempted to place them with the Saxicolinæ; and, indeed, in respect to some, we are by no means satisfied to which group they naturally belong; the characters by which we propose to denominate them will be subsequently stated. In the mean time, it deserves marked attention, that this close approximation leaves us in no doubt that the three aberrant families of the Dentirostres unite into a circle of their own, independent of their connexion to the shrikes (Laniadæ) and the thrushes (Merulidæ).

With these preliminary observations on the leading characters of this extensive assemblage of birds, we shall now proceed to the names and definitions of the genera composing it. These appear to be as follows:—

1. Rhipidura, the Fan-tailed Fly-catchers;
2. Monacha, the Oriole, or Hooded Fly-catchers; and,
3. Megalophus, or Great-crested Fly-catchers.

These three appear to form the aberrant group, as representing the rasorial, the grallatorial, and the fissirostral types. The fourth genus is Todus, composed of the well known Todies, or South American Flycatchers. And the fifth is Muscicapa, consisting entirely of those, pre-eminently typical, which are restricted to the Old World.

Our proposition is, that these genera form a circular group. But before we enter into those details by which we hope to substantiate this assertion, let us, in the first instance, briefly state the prominent or typical distinctions of each, and then compare them, in our usual manner, with some other well known and authenticated groups, whose internal relations have stood the test of experience and rigid analysis. And, first, they may be compared with the Orders of Perchers in the following manner:

The experienced ornithologist need hardly he reminded, that when two groups are compared whose rank and situation are either remote or very dissimilar, the analogical resemblances between them will partake of the same remoteness; hence it sometimes happens, that although they agree sufficiently strong in some parts to make us feel sufficiently confident that the analogies are just, yet others will be so obscure that their correctness can only be established by a line of inductive reasoning, and their mutual relations come to light through the instrumentality of other groups. Applying this undoubted fact to the foregoing table, we shall find some of the analogies more apparent than others; and we are therefore to inquire, how far those which seem the most remote can be placed on the same degree of probability with the others. There can be no doubt, for instance, that the true fly-catchers, forming the genus Muscicapa, are the most perfectly organized group,—in reference to the true distinctions of that circle to which they belong,—in the whole sub-family. These typical distinctions are seen in the length of their wings, giving a power of flight not possessed by the Todies; their strongly hooked bill, the long and stiff bristles round the mouth, and their remarkably short, but not syndactyle feet; their habits are strictly in unison with these characters. They fill the same station, in short, in their own circle, as the Conirostres do among the Perchers, and we hence conclude that they are analogous. If this position is true, it necessarily follows that the Todies and the Dentirostres are also analogous; because the affinity between Muscicap and Todus is just as perfect and unquestionable as that between the Conirostres and the Dentirostres. Whether this analogy is shown in a more direct manner by certain habits possessed by both, of which we are at present ignorant, is a question to be determined hereafter; but we can discover no tangible analogy in their structure which would lead us immediately to conclude that they mutually represented each other. Passing to the two next groups brought under comparison, namely, Megalophus and the Fissirostres, we have one point of strong resemblance in the feet. The toes of the only species of Megapodius yet discovered, are much more united than in the typical examples of the two preceding genera, although its crest would seem to give this bird an equal claim to be considered a rasorial type. In determining, however, between these two opposite analogies, we have invariably found that great strength of foot, and disconnection of the toes, is a much more prevalent, and therefore a more certain indication of rasorial types, than the mere possession of a crest. This opinion is fully confirmed upon looking to the rasorial order itself, where we see that strength and perfection of foot is the universal character, while crests are not possessed by more than one-tenth of the whole. Or, if we reverse the comparison, and look to the Fissirostres and the Natatores, we observe that imperfection of foot is their predominant characteristic. Megalophus, therefore, maybe considered a true fissirostral type; possessing, however, in its remarkable crest, one of the characters of the genus into which it blends, at the opposite point of the circle, namely, Rhipidura. On the analogy of Monacha to the Tenuirostres there can be but little doubt; both are the most aberrant in their own circles, and both are remarkable for their cylindrical bills and the advancement of the frontal feathers over the nostrils. The last analogy to be traced, is that between the fantailed flycatchers (Rhipidura) and the rasorial birds (Rasores). Adverting to what we have just remarked on one of the primary characters of rasorial types, we find that this group of flycatchers have the longest and the strongest feet of any in the whole circle; when to this we see added a remarkably broad fan-shaped tail, and several peculiarities of economy which will be subsequently detailed, the analogy becomes more than probable it is all but certain. Rhipidura, in fact, possesses the whole of the rasorial characters excepting one, which seems transferred, as it were, to Megalophus, in the form of a crest; at least no species has yet been discovered, among the fan-tailed flycatchers, which possesses this ornament.

Let us now institute another comparison, by which, probably, what we have just advanced on the analogies of this family will in some degree be confirmed. Every ornithologist must be struck with the resemblance between the Babbling Thrushes (Crateropus) and the Fan-tailed Flycatchers (Rhipidura). We will therefore bring the circles in which these two groups occur into comparison, and by placing them opposite one another, ascertain whether a resemblance may be traced in all the other groups of which these two circles are composed.

Here the analogies of the flycatchers become much more definite, simply because they are compared with a group more in accordance with their own; or, in other words, the resemblances loose that remoteness which was the inevitable consequence of our last comparison. Thus, we find, that not only the analogy between the fan-tailed flycatchers (Rhipidura) and the babbling thrushes is perfect, but that other unexpected points of analogy come to light in the remaining groups. The orioles (Oriolinæ) and the hooded flycatchers, for instance, not only are the most aberrant in all their characters, but they have a peculiarity of colouring in the black hood which envelopes the head and neck of nearly all the species, which is very striking. The bill of Monacha carinata is much more like that of an oriole than of a flycatcher, while the plumage, again, of Monacha chrysomela, is almost a counterpart of that of its prototypes,—the Oriolus paradiscus and the Sericulus chrysocephalus,—not only as to its colour, but in that peculiar rich velvetty texture which is found in no other birds of these two families. The analogy between Megalophus and Brachypus is not so strong as among the others, but both have very short and peculiarly feeble feet; the weakness, however, of our comparison between these two last groups is amply made up by the strong resemblance of the todies to the Myotherma, as sufficiently expressed in the table, while the same observation is applicable regarding those points in which the typical flycatchers (Muscicapa) so perfectly represent the typical thrushes (Merulidæ).

One of the many inferences that may be drawn from the above exposition, is that which renders the genera of the Musciapinæ representations, equally perfect, of the divisions of the Laniadæ or shrikes. The only point upon which further evidence seems to be necessary regards Megalophus; and, on this account, it will be as well if the two groups are examined more accurately. We shall therefore now state the analogies of the

The two first of these analogies are so remarkably strong that they require no additional evidence to support them. The third, or that between Megalophus and Dicrurus, tends very much to confirm what we have advanced respecting Megalophus, for the crests, so common among the Drongo shrikes (Dicrurus), are certainly more like that of Megalophus, in point of structure, than are those of the Tyranninæ; all the latter being concealed, and the feathers not lengthened.

We have already seen how completely the orioles are represented by Monacha; and we shall now find that both these are only prototypes of the Celepyrinæ. The colouring of Monacha carinata is that of a Ceblepyris; while the C. lobata has exactly the same sort of naked wattles so conspicuous in Monacha telascopthalmus. Lastly, the Tyrannulæ represent Rhipidura in being the only shrikes which have the perfectly depressed bill of the flycatchers, and in the typical species having broad rounded tails. This analogy, however, is as weak as the last and the two first are the reverse; so that we have another proof, that in these sort of comparisons some resemblances will be much more strong, or rather better known, than others. Our inability, however, to discover other analogies than those we have just mentioned, between Rhipidura and Tyrannulæ, is of little consequence to our present purpose; for as we think it indisputable, after what has been said, that Rhipidura is a rasorial type, our only desire is to throw some additional light upon the analogies of Megalophus. This will be effected by looking to three of the genera composing the circle of the Thamnophilinæ, or Bush-shrikes, and comparing them with the three corresponding ones among the Muscicapidæ, thus,—

This we consider the best and the final test by which our proposition that Megalophus,—notwithstanding its crest,—is a fissirostral type, can be tried. The crest of the Prionops plumatus, although of a different sort, is more analogous, in its extraordinary size, to that of Megalophus, than that of any other known bird; and both further coincide in having very pale and delicate feet, upon which the scales are so thin that they can scarcely be perceived. If we continued the comparison by enumerating the other two genera in the above circles, we should find that Colluricincla is no obscure representation of Monacha; but the remaining genus in the first series (the Thamnophilinæ) being unknown, we of course are entirely ignorant of the prototype of Rhipidura.

Having thus endeavoured to substantiate our views of the primary divisions of the family of Flycatchers, we shall now enter upon the details of each.

By commencing with the genus

Rhipidura

Hors. and Vig.

We begin with that group which shows the nearest affinity to the Fluvicolinæ, or Water-chats. It will be remembered, that on a former occasion¹⁰ we placed the Australian genus Seisura, conditionally, within the confines of the Fluvicolinæ, though with very considerable doubt; expressing, at the same time, a strong suspicion that it truly belonged to the present division. This opinion has been fully confirmed by subsequent investigations; and we shall here attempt to refer it to its true rank and station among its congeners. The typical characters of the fan-tailed flycatchers may be gathered from what has already been intimated in our attempt to make out their analogies: their chief distinction, as their name implies, is exhibited in a very broad and rounded tail, which the bird is constantly in the habit of opening or expanding in the shape of a fan; next to this, in importance, is the general strength of their feet, as seen more particularly in three of the typical sub-genera, the tarsus of which is much larger than in any genuine flycatcher yet discovered. The bill exhibits nothing very peculiar or strikingly different from the typical flycatchers, except, indeed, that the sides, towards the end, are rather compressed; thus indicating, on the one hand, an affinity to Muscicapa, and, on the other, to Monacha. The recent acquisition of some interesting birds from India, which prove to belong to this group, has thrown a new light upon others which have long baffled our further analysis of this group; so that now possessing, as we consider, four out of the five leading forms, we shall no longer refrain from characterizing them as so many sub-genera; submitting to the reader, as we go on, those reasons which have influenced this determination. These types we shall distinguish by the names of Rhipidura (proper), Leucocirca, Myadestes, and Seisura; the first and the last having been already proposed by Messrs. Horsfield and Vigors. Rhipidura, in this restricted sense, contains those species only which have the bill remarkably small, and compressed for half its length; the rictal bristles extend to its tip, and are very stiff; the tail is particularly broad and fan-shaped, all the feathers being slightly graduated; but the feet are not more developed than in the typical fly-catchers. The great-headed titmouse of Latham, not now existing in any of the London collections, is, in all probability, the most typical species; while the fan-tailed flycatcher of the same author, and several others, called by him “varieties,” exhibit the same characters. The geographic range of these birds appear to be restricted to Australia and the smaller islands of the Pacific Ocean. Forster, in his voyage round the world, met with one species, of which, he says,

it is exceedingly familiar, constantly hunting after insects and flies, always with the tail spread like a fan; it is easily tamed, and will then sit on a person’s shoulder and pick off the flies: it has a chirping note, but not to be called a song.¹¹

Lewin, again, speaking of another species, gives us, in a few words, the most essential character, in regard to habits, of the genus; he calls his orange-rumped flycatcher, which (from a specimen now before us) is evidently a typical Rhipidura,—

a chattering noisy species, constantly in motion, jerking and spreading its fan-like tail as it passes from hush to bush, catching its food in its flight.¹²

The American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) is well known to possess the same habits; yet the two genera differ so much, that it would be preposterous to class them together. Here, then, we have another instance of that beautiful series of analogies which nature preserves between the contents of all her groups, whether large or small; and thus we find, that by comparing the circle of the Parianæ with that of the Muscicapinæ, the genera Rhipidura and Setophaga will stand opposite, or are parallel to, each other.

The next modification of form, or sub-genus, we have named

Leucocirca

from the circumstance of several of the species having more white about their tails than any other fly-catching birds yet discovered. It is, in truth, now become a matter of no small difficulty in ornithology to frame generic names,—expressing a peculiarity of structure or of habit,—sufficiently different from those at present in use, to answer the object proposed. Names taken from the various constructions of the bill, wings, tail, and other members, are completely exhausted; while the comparative ignorance in which we remain regarding the habits of foreign birds, is an effectual bar to our compounding names founded upon such circumstances. We have hardly any other resource, therefore, left to us, but to employ designations derived from other peculiarities; and as we find that many natural groups are nearly as much distinguished by colour as by structure, there appears no valid objection to deriving our names occasionally from this source, as well as from structure or from habits. But to return. The sub-genus Leucocirca, as far as we yet know, is restricted to the tropical latitudes of the Old World, but more especially to India and its islands, where it represents the last division. That it immediately follows Rhipidura, not a doubt can be entertained; the only difficulty seems to be, where we are to draw our imaginary line of demarcation. Considering, however, the remarkably small and universally compressed bill of Rhipidura, as seen in R. flabellifera, as the most obvious, if not the real typical, character of that division, we place under Leucocirca all others which have the bill more lengthened, broader at the base, and less compressed towards the tip; the bristles at the corners of the mouth, although very rigid and often much lengthened, are not so long as the bill; the tail, in both, is the same, but in this the feet are more developed; and in one species (L. laticauda), which is probably the type, particularly long and stout. We can hardly suppose that none of these species have been described; but as they do not appear to be figured, excepting, indeed, the M. Javannica by Sparman (Mus. Carl. pl. 75), a specimen of this species, obligingly communicated to me by Dr. Horsfield, perfectly agrees with Le Vaillant’s account and figure of his Gobe-mouches a lunettes.¹⁴ This circumstance is of more importance than the mere correction of synonymes; for it establishes the fact, on the evidence of Le Vaillant, that this bird has the same habit of spreading out its tail, in the shape of a fan, as is possessed by Rhipidura;¹⁵ a habit which no doubt extends to all the other species having the same structure. These latter, indeed, we have been compelled to designate as new; for not being figured, it is totally impossible to identify them with the loose and vague descriptions drawn up at a time when ornithology comparatively was in its infancy.

We have not, as yet, been able to determine whether Rhipidura or Leucocirca should be viewed as the pre-eminent type of this genus. If we considered that this station should be assigned to that division which, from what we yet know, shows the greatest developement of the tail, joined to a superior length and strength of foot, then Leucocirca must have the preference; but if we regard the greatest difference in the form of the bill from that so common among the typical flycatchers (Muscicapa), then we must place Rhipidura, at the head of this genus. This point, however, is not of great moment to our present object, seeing that we have only just began to understand something of the whole group, which will probably be enriched, in a few years, with double the number of species now known. There can be no doubt, however, that the two sub-genera now described are the typical and sub-typical forms; a conclusion which may be drawn, not merely from their following each other in absolute affinity, but from the nature of the others, to which we now proceed.

It will be perceived, by a reference to the table already given, that the genus Rhipidura, as a whole, is succeeded by that of Muscicapa; it follows, therefore, that the type which comes next should resemble a Muscicapa more than does Leucoctrca, because it must form the connecting link between the two primary groups. We have had in our Museum, for the last thirteen years, a most singular sort of flycatcher, whose natural relations, until the last week, had completely baffled us; so much so, indeed, as to cast a doubt over our arrangement both of the Saxicolæ and the Muscicapidæ. The first impression, upon seeing this bird, is that of its being a robin (Erythaica); a glance at its bill and its feet destroys this idea, and we should then pronounce it a flycatcher. But its tail is so totally unlike that of the restricted genus Muscicapa, where alone it might be supposed to enter, that we were altogether perplexed as to its precise station: and although we were convinced it was either a most aberrant species, or the type of a new sub-genus, we did not venture to characterize it, even in our latest arrangement.¹⁶ The recent acquisition, however, of the birds before alluded to, have solved all our doubts upon this subject; and under the sub-generic name of

As the fourth type in the circle, and following the last, we place the sub-genus

Myadestes

we shall not only characterize this form, but endeavour to demonstrate it as the rasorial type of Rhipidura. The bill is small, angular, and much depressed towards the base; but the culmen is slightly and gradually bent, and the gonys ascends, in the same degree, towards the point: the rictal bristles are few and short, and do not extend to one-half the length of the bill: the wings are moderate, not reaching beyond the tail-covers; their structure is the same as in all the Old World fly-catchers, but the first and second are suddenly narrowed at their tips; a character we have not met with in any other of this family. The legs, for a flycatcher, are strong, the tarsus moderately lengthened, and the toes considerably developed, much longer, in fact, than either in Rhipidura or Leucocirca. The middle toe is as long as the tarsus; the inner toe much shorter than the outer, but both are cleft to their base; the hinder and inner toes are equal; the legs are very pale, and the tarsal scale is in one entire piece; the breadth and curvature of the claws, joined to the relative length of the toes, renders it highly probable that this bird does not habitually frequent the ground. But its great peculiarity lies is the tail, which is moderately lengthened and slightly graduated, having something of the size and form of Leucocirca, excepting that the feathers, instead of being broad, are rather narrow, with the tips acuminated.

Such are the characters of the bird before us. It is at once distinguished from our sub-genus Muscicapa (as subsequently defined) by its long toes and lengthened graduated bill; and from Leucocirca, by its small slightly bristled bill, and those other indications which unite it to the genuine flycatchers: the whole structure of the bird, particularly in the head, which is thick like that of the robin, is quite opposed to that slenderness of shape so general among its congeners. Lastly, although not one of the least of its characteristic marks, is the pure white which ornaments the ends of the three pair of lateral tail-feathers. Laying all these particulars together, we view this bird as the rasorial representative of the fan-tailed flycatchers: its unusually long toes, its attenuated tail and quill-feathers, and its almost smooth rictus, are all so many indications of the type it represents, setting aside the developement of the tail, because that is the characteristic of the entire group of which this type forms but a part.

What the fifth and last type of Rhipidura may be, we know not; and we shall therefore at once proceed to the genus

Seïsura

whose characters it is not necessary here to detail, further than to show its real affinities. Seïsura, in short resembles an Old World flycatcher of M. Cuvier’s division, Muscipeta, except that its bill is unusually long, its tail nearly even, and its tarsus rather more lengthened; although the toes are so small, that no one would suspect they were ever used to stand for more than an instant upon the ground, or upon any flat surface. The tail of S. volitans, the best known species, although not so broad or rounded as in the preceding types, has yet a sufficient length and breadth about it to justify a suspicion that it was occasionally spread out in the same manner; a fact confirmed by what has been published of its manners. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that this bird has no bristles at the gape; for although they do not reach to half the length of the bill, which is uncommonly long, they are nevertheless very stiff, and there are several others, slightly recurved, over the nostrils. We have already remarked how intimately this form appeared connected to the American water-chats, although we strongly suspected that future analysis would show that it belonged to the circle of Rhipidura. This opinion has been so strongly confirmed by a subsequent investigation, that we now place it at once as the tenuirostral sub-genus, a station which at once reconciles all the opinions that have been formed of it, and all that is known of its very peculiar manners. Occupying the most aberrant situation in the present genus, it is consequently that which unites Rhipidura to the Fluvicolinæ: as the tenuirostral type, it represents, in a most remarkable manner, its prototypes among the todies and the flycatchers, namely, the sub-genera Platystera and Hylïota, both of which have very long bills,—the primary character of all tenuirostral types. Mr. Caley, who seems to have possessed much tact in observing the habits of the Australian birds, observes of this:—

I have often considered it when I witnessed its manners, to be the wagtail of the colony.¹⁸

And such it truly is. The wagtails, as every ornithologist knows, form the tenuirostral type of the warblers; and Seïsura holds exactly the same station in the genus Rhipidura. Such notes, made by mere observers of the facts they communicate, are often of the first importance, because they are framed without any reference to theories or general laws, and thus become the best possible evidence in support of a natural classification.

Monacha

Horsf. & Vigors

contains the Oriole, or Hooded-flycatchers. We give them this familiar name from the black and golden yellow colour of the typical species (M. chrysomela) here figured, which immediately reminds the observer of an oriole: the two groups, in fact, are perfectly analogous, being the most aberrant (or the tenuirostral) type of their own circle. The French naturalists discovered two of the most beautiful species in the islands near New Guinea, to which, and the neighbouring continent of New Holland, the group is confined. The bill is particularly strong; and from being as much compressed as depressed, we immediately perceive how distinct they are from ordinary fly-catchers. As representing the Tenuirostres, the gayest of all birds in their plumage, the oriole fly-catchers present us with the most lovely bird in the whole family, the Monacha chyrsomela (Sw.). It is clothed in the same sort of brilliant velvet-like feathers—black and orange—of the regent oriole (Sericulus chrysocephalus); while another species, Monacha telescopthalima, (Sw.) likewise an inhabitant of New Guinea, has naked erect wattles over the eyes. Under the name of Musicapa carinata, of our Zool. Ill. i. pl. 147, we first brought this group to the notice of ornithologists; and, it is proper also to mention, that several others, erroneously placed by M. Temminck under our genus Drymophila, strictly belong to Monacha. The analogous representations of this beautiful group are so palpable that they hardly require pointing out. It reminds us immediately of Psaris by its bill,—of Sericulus by its velvetty feathers,—of Oriolus by its colour, and, through them, of the paradise birds (Paradisidæ). The carinated species, again, puts on the exact colours of a Ceblepyris; while, in M. telescopthalma, we have the spectacle-like wattles of Perspicilla, Ceblepyrus lobatus, and the sub-genus Platystera; not to mention the numerous species of naked-eyed and wattled plovers, and many of the honey-suckers (Meliphagidæ), all which are grallatorial types. How surprising is this uniformity in the midst of the greatest possible variety! We know not which excites the greatest surprise—the fact itself, or the new lustre thus discovered in the works of Omnipotence.

The third division of this family is the genus

Megalophus

at present represented by a single bird, whose structure is as remarkable as its appearance is beautiful. We have already attempted to show its natural station in this family and with its congeners. This extraordinary bird is not much bigger than a robin, and has nothing to recommend it in the general colour of its plumage, which is brown on the wings and back, and deep buff on the tail and under parts. Its crest, however, is perhaps the largest and most beautiful of any perching bird yet discovered: no adequate idea of this splendid ornament can be given by words. When in a recumbent state, it is so long as to hang down upon the back and on each side the head; but when erect, it forms a large semicircle round the crown, very much in the manner of the half of a full blown plant of the syngenesius order; its colour is bright reddish cinnamon, each feather being tipt with glossy blue-black, and enlarged at the end. The bill, for the size of the bird, is enormous, its shape being like that of Muscipeta; although somewhat dilated towards the base, it is very flat, and rather lengthened, and so strongly protected, that the bristles at its base reach nearly to the tip. The wings and tail are moderately long; and their structure comes much nearer to those of the Muscipeta than to the flycatchers of the New World. Finally, the feet are very short, and nearly white the toes rather long in proportion, and the claws very slightly curved. The ornithologist will readily trace in these particulars many strong indications of the characters of Eurylaimus, to which group, as we believe, this bird constitutes the passage. Its great rarity is no doubt to be attributed to its very local dispersion.

Todus

The genus Todus evidently succeeds the last. As it is one of them which are typical of this sub-family, we should expect to find it more numerous in species and more diversified in forms; and such we discovered to be the case. Unlike the three aberrant divisions we have just quitted, the one before us presents us, for the first time in this family, with a complete and perfect circle, where scarcely a link is missing; and where we have, in consequence, the five types of nature fully and perfectly demonstrated. Hitherto we have been barely able, with much difficulty, and some latent doubts, to make out the prominent types of the divisions just gone through; not so much from the absolute relations which they bear to each other by intervening species, as by comparing our distribution of the order of their succession with that of other and more perfect circles, whose validity has been long established. But in the todies we can proceed with more confidence; for if, amidst so much variation, we can yet establish the same uniformity, and add another instance in corroboration of those general laws elsewhere promulgated, additional confidence is not only given to one, but to all. The “flood of light,” as it has been happily termed, which results from the demonstration of a single natural group, radiates, far and wide, upon all other such groups, and is again reflected back, with additional force, upon that which has been newly evolved. Of this description, in truth, do we consider the group we are about to illustrate. The views, now submitted to the scientific world, on the natural arrangement of this intricate family, have been “slowly and painfully” elaborating for near eleven years, in which period, as may be supposed, they have undergone numerous alterations and revisions; for so long as a single modification of form could not be explained and accounted for, we have studiously refrained from viewing our arrangement otherwise than as provisional. That it may not be found, hereafter, without errors, no one can suppose; and yet we may be allowed the satisfaction of saying, that there is no one bird, belonging to this genus, which has yet fallen under our inspection, but what may well find its place in the series, and furnish additional evidence that that series is in union with all those already established in other departments of nature. We venture to make these preliminary observations upon two grounds:

1. the scientific importance of the group before us; and,
2. as the reasons of our entering so fully into its detail.

The types of the genus Todus, as now defined, with but one exception, are exclusively restricted to the tropical latitudes of America; they are all very small birds, the largest not being equal to a robin, while the smallest is more diminutive than the gold-crest. The whole group is remarkable for three peculiarities:

1. the excessive shortness of the wings and tail;
2. the great comparative length and feebleness of the tarsi; and, lastly,
3. the elongated boat-shaped form of the bill.

Of these the first is the most universal; and when we compare these characters with those belonging to the same members in the birds of the genus Muscicapa, we can have no doubt of their being employed in a very different manner. This brings with it the inference, that the todies do not seize their prey in the same manner as the flycatchers. Upon this point, in the absence of better information, we can say something from personal knowledge. Whenever we observed the black-capped tody in the woods of Brazil, where it is by no means scarce, we always found it hopping among the branches and the foliage of trees, pursuing its search to the extreme twig, much in the same way as our tom-tits. If its appearance gave warning to some hapless insect which could fly, and the attempt was made, the tody would then make a little saltus, or jumping flutter, two or three inches from the branch, and peradventure seize the insect; but if not, it would still continue its search for others, as if its wings were too feeble to sustain that sudden and vigorous flight which the true flycatchers can employ when so engaged. Now, as the species above alluded to is a typical example of the whole group, we may fairly and justly suppose that such are the typical habits; nor will this at all interfere with the fact that has been stated (but on somewhat questionable authority) regarding the green tody, which is said to frequent the ground in search of food as well as to frequent trees. Whether such a union exists in one and the same species may well be questioned; but the group, however small, would not be a natural one, did it not contain one which was to give us the rasorial or the grallatorial habit of walking on the ground, no less than another, which had the tail more developed than usual. The todies,—we ire still speaking of the most typical species,—have the rictus or gape very slightly bristled;¹⁹ and, in some species, these bristles are nearly obsolete. We infer from this, that the food of these birds consists of small weak insects, probably larvæ, rather than of such as are able to make vigorous struggles in their attempts, when caught, to escape; for it is to counteract such effects that the bristles of the true flycatchers, which are altogether more powerful birds, are so strong. In a country like tropical America, where insect population is so dense and so varied, it is essential to the balance of creation that suitable checks should be provided for each tribe, after its kind. Now these flying tribes become the prey, according to their respective sizes and habits, of the tyrants (Tyranninæ), the swallows, the water-chats (Fluvicolinæ), the tyrant warblers (Dumecola), and the todies; for the true flycatchers, we must remember, are excluded from the range of the New World, their place being supplied by the tyrants. Consider, then, what a multitude of minute apterous insects, living among foliage, would have no equivalent check upon their increase, did all the Muscicapidæ live only upon such as could fly. Now the todies appear especially adapted to fill this office: they are fly-catchers, it is true, but very partially so; for they exert the power only upon particular occasions, and then very feebly. Nay, it may even be questioned, whether,—in accordance with what we so often find in typical forms,—the genuine todies do not occasionally eat soft fruits. When nothing, however, is absolutely known of the natural history of a group, it would be carrying analogy too far were we to attempt any explanation which could not be supported, in some manner, by ascertained facts. We must consequently remain in ignorance why the legs of the todies, although equally feeble with those of the flycatchers, are nevertheless so much longer. We know, however, that a syndactyle foot, from its giving greater breadth to the sole, is much more adapted for grasping than one in which all the toes are cleft to their origin; and as this power is called more into exertion among the todies than in the flycatchers, strictly so termed, we see that their toes are accordingly more united. Now the pre-eminent type of the whole group seems to be the Todus viridis. And it is consequently this very bird which has the most syndactyle foot; while the strong curvature and breadth of its claws would seem to disprove at once the assertion that it feeds upon the ground.²⁰ No bird, out of thousands which we know of, having the peculiar sort of claw possessed by the Todus viridis, has hitherto proved to be in any way terrestrial. On the contrary, their habits, whenever they come to light, turn out to be strictly arboreal. Now, in proportion as we recede from a type, its distinctions become less marked; and hence it is that in the black-capped tody the feet are less syndactyle, and the claws more like those of a raptorial type. The preceding observations on the natural history, properly so called, of the todies, chiefly relate to the typical examples; for as to the manners of Platyrynchus, and of the aberrant sub-genera, we know absolutely nothing. Let us now, therefore, consider the group more in detail; for which purpose we shall designate the sub-genera as follows:

1. Conopophaga, or short-tailed todies;
2. Platyrynchus, or flat-billed todies;
3. Todus, or the typical todies;
4. Lepturus, or tyrant todies; and,
5. Platystera, or African todies.

The first, fourth, and fifth of these sub-genera form the aberrant group; the second we regard as the sub-typical; and the third as strictly typical of the whole circle. We commence with the sub-genus

Conopophaga

because it evidently connects Todus with Megalophus; while a glance at its broad, although gradually narrowing bill, shows it to be of an intermediate, structure between Platyrhynchus and Megalophus. The birds belonging to this group, although the largest in size of all the todies, are not bigger than a robin, yet, from the excessive shortness of their tails, they seem to be much smaller; the tail, in fact, on a superficial glance, would seem as if it had been cut off, for it scarcely projects more than half an inch beyond the long and lax feathers which cover the back and rump. The wings, however, although much rounded, are by no means proportionably short; while the legs and toes are remarkably large, but somewhat slender. We might, from this structure, infer, that these were purely terrestrial birds; but we are not inclined implicitly to adopt this belief. The claws are very broad and fully curved, the lateral toes unequal, and the outer connected to the middle toe as far as the first joint; the same reasons, therefore, which have been urged against Todus viridis being a terrestrial bird, are equally applicable in the present case. Whatever may be the real economy of these birds, certain it is that they are of a thicker and stronger structure than any other of the todies. The head is particularly large, the body plump, and the feet comparatively strong; there is a strength, also, in the bill, which is not found in any of the other sub-genera: when viewed in profile only, it precisely resembles that of an ant-thrush (Myothera), occasioned by the thickness of the under mandible, the gonyx or ridge of which curves upward, while the tip is distinctly notched: this is an important and peculiar character. The Conopophagæ, in all probability, feed upon soft apterous insects; for they have no bristles, properly so called, on the sides of their bill, where there are merely a few straggling setaceous feathers the front; of the head is protected in the same way, as well as the nostrils; these latter being very large, beset with only a small oval aperture at the end, and which is placed nearly in the middle of the bill. The rough and bristly appearance of the front of these birds reminds us of Dasycephala, to which, both in this and in their brown plumage, they are analogous. Of their manners we are totally unacquainted, further than that our hunters reported they were only to be met with in thick woods; and they are at all times scarce. We possess two species from Brazil.

The sub-genus

Platyrhynchus

obviously follows the last sub-genus; for although we are unacquainted with those aberrant species which would have made the transition still more gradual, the approximation of the two is quite sufficient to render the series perfect. Platyrhynchus cancromus, in short, might at first be mistaken for a small Conopophaga, so exactly do the two forms agree in their general aspect. We enter not here into the technical distinctions; but Platyrhynchus is immediately known by its short and widely dilated bill, the under mandible of which is very thin, and the base of both defended by strong thickset bristles, pointing obliquely forwards; the feet are those of Conopophaga in miniature, the proportions being the same, but very greatly diminished; the claws, moreover, are slender, sharp, and but slightly curved, so that if either of these two groups might be supposed to frequent the ground, the probability would lie with Platyrhynchus. But here, again, we have not the slightest authenticated fact whereupon to ground a conjecture. The two species already known, we believe, are confined to Tropical America where they are very scarce. It is probable that the males, like that of P. cancromus, are distinguished by a concealed crest, an ornament so common among the fly-catching groups of America; but of which we do not know of more than one example in the flycatchers of the Old World.

The last little group brings us at once to the subgenus

Todus

the pre-eminent type of the whole group, and which, although but a portion, retains, par excellence, the patronymic name. We have frequently called the attention of ornithologists to that peculiar property possessed by groups pre-eminently typical,—whether those groups be large or small,—of exhibiting a greater number of modifications, in the subordinate forms, than are to be found in the other divisions of their own circle. Lawrance, our eminent physiologist, long ago announced this fact in reference to the Caucasian race of Man, the most favoured and highly endowed of all that have ever lived. And it might be established beyond doubt, that this fact, first stated as an isolated and disconnected remark, might be traced throughout the class of animals now before us; sufficient, at least, to establish it as one of the laws of nature. There are more genera and sub-genera,—in other words, mere variations of form,—among the order Insessores, or perchers, than in all the other orders put together, and more in the genus Corvus, the type of all birds, than in any other yet ascertained. The sub-genus before us, like the groups just named, is pre-eminently typical; and we shall find, upon close analysis, that the variation of its species, as in the sub-genus Bos,²² turns out to be regulated by the very same law; they actually become types of form. And we shall find these types almost as distinctly marked as if they belonged to a family, instead of merely representing the succession of species in a sub-genus.

The most universal character of the typical todies is their flat elongated bill, in opposition to that of Platyrhynchus, which, although equally flattened, is remarkably short; the sides are bristled, but these bristles are short and weak, and in some species are almost obsolete. The wings and tail are short, but the latter is much more conspicuous than in Platyrhynchus, while the form of its termination indicates the variation of the species and the position they occupy in the series. Thus, in the Todus viridis the tail is even, in melanocephalus²³ it is graduated, in megacephalus²⁴ it is shortest, and the end is rounded; while in platycircus it is longest, with the feathers broad, but terminating in points. The other species yet discovered fill up the intervals, and arrange themselves close to one or other of those just named. The variation in the length and structure of the feet is no less remarkable. These members are always sufficiently long to point out the sub-genus; their variation is consequently comparative. In Todus platycircus their length is the greatest; while in viridis and megacephalus they are shorter than in melanocephalus. These variations are accompanied by differences in the formation of the claws and toes; so that without a competent knowledge of the group as a whole, “good genera,” as such artificial divisions are sometimes called, might actually he made out of several of the species, to the no small confusion of all that is true in nature or useful in science. It has entirely originated, in fact, from such limited views, that the Todus viridis has been pronounced “the unique example of its genus;” and ail the other species detached from it, and thrown into the common receptacle of flat-bellied birds,—“the great genus” Muscicapa. It is needless, however, to criticise artificial systems; and therefore let us now see what results will be obtained by arranging the species above named, and comparing them with the types they represent.

Thus, if we discriminated these birds as species, not by their colour, but by the different shades or modifications of their structure, we might almost use the very words which would at the same time concisely express the leading distinctions of the primary types of birds. The Todus viridis has the most perfect shaped foot, merely for grasping, in this little group; and the prehensile power of these members constitutes the chief distinction of the order Insessores among birds, and Quadrumana among quadrupeds. The acute claws, and the more sudden deflection of the tip of the bill in Melanocephalus, and two or three others, are also characteristic of the falcons and the shrikes, the Raptores and the Dentirostres. The great size of the head, coupled with unusual brevity in the tail and the tarsi, axe three of the primary distinctions of the Fissirostres and the Natatores. While the remarkably long legs of T. Platycircus²⁵ might lead us to believe it was the representation of the grallitorial birds, but for its tail, which is twice the ordinary length, and although unusually broad, yet the ends are pointed. The formation, therefore, of this member, stamps the bird at once as a rasorial type; both these orders, in fact, have generally long legs, but it is only the Rasores that have either oread tails or pointed feathers. We may, therefore, fairly conclude, that the species of Todus which represents the Grallatores has not yet been discovered, or rather that it has not yet fallen under our observation.

The law of representation, although universal, is yet so simple, that if it is successfully demonstrated in any one group, it becomes equally established in all; because all must be referred to one general test, that is, to the primary types of nature. This has been so frequently exemplified in our treatise upon birds, and in that upon quadrupeds, that it becomes unnecessary to compare our present group with all others of the class or order to which it belongs; unless, indeed, there are some points of structure to be elicited which cannot be explained by a single analogical comparison. Nevertheless, the views here taken of the particular group before us are so completely at variance with those of our best ornithologists, that it is due to them, no less than to ourselves, to strengthen our position as much as possible, that it may be seen we have given the subject that attention it deserved before we ventured to promulgate a theory so much at variance with all that has hitherto been received. It is with this intention that we shall now lay before the ornithologist two other tables in further illustration of the series of the typical species of Todus; the first of these will make good their analogy, in the following manner, with the sub-divisions of the genus.

The species here named Megacephalus, and which will be subsequently described and figured, is very diminutive, not more than three inches and a quarter long, of which the head and bill actually occupies one inch and a tenth, or nearly one-third the length of the entire bird. It differs also from all the other species in having the bill more gradually attenuated in its breadth as it approaches the end; just, in short, as that of Conopophaga, of which it becomes, by its very short tail, large head, and bristled front, the complete prototype. Nevertheless, the sides of the mouth are strongly bristled, and the tarsi are considerably shorter than those of its congeners. Now, all these variations from the typical species are absolutely necessary to the harmony of nature. They indicate, as plainly as possible, that this bird is an aberrant species, and that it is of the fissirostral or aquatic type. Nor can it possibly be removed from this position among the todies, since there are now before me three other species which establishes the gradation between melanocephalus and megacephalus in the most decisive manner. And yet, if the bills of these two kindred species are viewed separately, one might be tempted to place them in different genera. The situation, also, of Todus megacephalus in the series of species, is further confirmed by the structure of T. platycircus, which, from being clearly a representation of the Rasores, will stand at the opposite side of the circle to that of Megacephalus; the grallatorial, or intervening type, as before observed, being wanting. We thus find, that even in a sub-genus the variations are sufficiently marked to give us the indications of a circular group; in which, although there is an apparent hiatus,²⁶ the remainder of the series is so perfect that no reasonable doubt can be entertained of its being natural. The species which will represent the grallatorial form may probably be found also in Brazil; but as the most aberrant types of this family, namely, Monacha and Platystera, are of the Old World, we should feel no surprise if this also turned out to be an inhabitant of the same region.

Considering the great variation of structure in so small a group as this, and which we merely term a sub-genus, it may be fairly asked, even by those who take it for granted, or who cannot controvert the affinities here stated, whether this group does not in reality hold a higher rank than what we have assigned to it? or, in other words, is it not a genus rather than a sub-genus? This question we have more than once investigated; and the result has been what we have stated. A desire of solving it as far as possible, led us, in fact, to undertake the analysis of the whole family. So far as we have yet laid the result of this labour before the reader, he will perceive that the entire genus Todus is too distinct and peculiar to be incorporated with either Rhipidura, Monacha, or Megalophus; while its relation to this latter, and to the genus Muscicapa, is so very nearly equal, that we can only conclude its station to be intermediate. This point being settled, we are next to ascertain whether Todus,—as a whole,—constitutes a natural group; or, in other words, whether this group is circular and representative. This question, as will presently appear, can also be answered in the affirmative. Hence it follows, that if its sub-genera differ more among themselves than do the species which we have been illustrating, our inevitable conclusion is, that these latter are variations of the sub-genus, and not of the genus,—that they are specific modifications, and not, like Conopophaga, &c., types of sub-genera. We shall arrive at a similar conclusion if we argue the question in another way. We have stated, in another place, as one of the primary laws of natural classification, that the number of circular groups, in point of rank, are Nine; and that those which form the ninth are sub-genera. Let us then take one of the examples that have been quoted in support of this theory, and see how far the group, which we here term a sub-genus, will agree therewith. We have stated that Parus barmicus holds precisely the same rank in the typical division, or sub-genus of Parus, as does Todus platycircus in our sub-genus Todus; the two birds, in fact, representing each other. We will therefore now see how many circles are to be traversed before we arrive at the two which contains the birds.

We thus perceive that the genus Todus is precisely of the same rank as that of Parus, and that the pre-eminent typical division, or sub-genus, of each, contains subordinate types of variation or of form, as well marked as those of all the higher divisions; so that a sub genus, when perfect, becomes just as much a circular group as any of the eight which precedes it in the list. There is not a whit greater difference between Todus viridis and Todus platycircus, than there is between Parus biarmicus and Parus cæruleus. And if Todus megacephalus deserves to be ranked as a sub-genus, so must its representative Parus caudatus; for the one is a prototype of the other—both being at once distinguished by their great disproportionate heads. All these arguments, indeed, may be admitted; and yet it maybe urged that this determinate number of nine, in the different ranks of circular groups, is a theory too important to be taken on the testimony of one naturalist only, interested in strengthening a theory of his own, and, therefore, with every wish to be accurate, still peculiarly liable to error. Now we shall at once annul this objection, although it rests on no demonstrative evidence, by producing the unpremeditated evidence of one who had no idea of the law in question, but merely drew up his observations to illustrate a particular group of animals in a totally different class. Mr. Macleay’s views on the number of circular groups which exist, before he arrived at that of the genus Scarabæus, has thus been stated by himself; and we shall now compare them with those of the genus Todus.

To these nine circular groups, one within the other, indicated in the Hor. Ent., we have only given those names indicatory of their relative ranks, which have already been elsewhere explained,²⁷ and uniformly employed in our former works. The groups themselves are Mr. Macleay’s, not ours; and we are assured they are the result of close analysis. So likewise are those in the opposite series, the result of an analysis undertaken to ascertain the rank of one animal in the scale of nature; and as the results of both inquiries perfectly accord, we know not how the question regarding the rank of Todus viridis, megacephalus, or of any other of the species here mentioned, can be further prosecuted. Far from thinking it necessary to apologise for these details, we consider it fortunate to be possessed of those materials necessary for the investigation. Ornithologists need not be told how highly important it has become to have some definite notions on the affinities of the Todus viridis. One of our best systematists places it between the Australian manakins (Pardalotus) and the flycatchers. Another, between the kingfishers (Halcyonidæ) and the motmots (Priorities). A third (M. Cuvier), between the kingfishers and the hornbills! While a fourth makes it the point of connexion between the wide-mouthed rollers (Eurystomus) and Alcedo. In respect to the latter arrangement, which professes to be quinary and circular, we may venture to observe, that there is an evident relation between Eurystomus, Todus, and one of the types of Alcedo, as well as with Eurylaimus and Muscicapa, all flat-billed groups. But there is as much difference, in other respects, between Eurystomus and Todus, as there is between Platyrhynchus cancromus and Eurylaimus. They are all, in fact, either directly or indirectly, fissirostral types, whatever may be their local rank in relation to other groups: and if the form of the bill was to decide the location of a bird, all these, nay, the whole of the fissirostral types throughout ornithology, might, on such a principle, be placed by themselves in a distinct division. But before proceeding further, we shall annex the figures and descriptions of three of the most remarkable birds just mentioned.

Let us now proceed to the sub-genus

Lepturus

the rasorial type of the todies, and to which we are conducted by Todus megacephalus. So close indeed is this approximation, that the profile of the bills of the two are almost precisely the same; with this difference only, that in Lepturus the sides are more compressed, so that the outer half of the bill is as high as it is broad. This is a nice, but a very important distinction; because it shows that in Todus megacephalus we had the last remnant of the boat-shaped bill of that sub-genus, At present we know but of one example of this type, which, as its name implies, has rather a long, but very slender tail. It resembles, in fact, a little Malurus, or Orthotomus, with the bill of a flycatcher. Its wings are even still shorter, for the size of the bird, than those of T. megacephalus, but here the similarity ceases: instead of possessing the short weak feet and small toes so characteristic of all the species of Todus we have just dwelt upon, those of the bird before us are long, and, for its size, even robust. The toes are all cleft to their base; the lateral ones are of equal length, and the middle one is much developed. This structure, added to its remarkably short wings and lengthened tail, points out this singular bird to be the rasorial sub-genus of Todus, having for its prototypes a host of representations in nearly all the families and genera of the perching birds, of which it is only necessary to mention Troglodytes, Orthotomus, Crateropus, Fluvicola, Synallaxis, &c. to give an accurate idea of the structure of the bird before us. We have no doubt that other species of Lepturus, and probably its types of form, will be detected, when the immense number of South American flycatchers, which we already know of from books and museum specimens, are properly examined, setting aside those which still remain undiscovered in that productive region, the central metropolis, as it were, of flycatching birds. The structure of the toes and claws in Lepturus ruficeps will detach it from the typical todies, while the length of the tarsi and the compression of the bill, removes it far away from the little tyrants (Tyrannula).

The next sub-genus is

Platystera

Jard. & Selb.

composed alone of the African todies. Perfect as is the union of the two last divisions, that between Lepturus and the one we have now come to, if possible, is still more so. The first species of Platystera, in short, which meets us in our progress, has such a close resemblance to Lepturus, that had we not ascertained it to be an aberrant example, we should, without hesitation, have placed them together as species only. To the bird in question, we venture to impose the name of Platystera longipes, and it has been described and figured by Le Vaillant under the name of Le Mignard.²⁹ He specially remarks, that this is the smallest flycatching bird that has been discovered in Africa,—and the very same may be said of the Lepturus ruficeps, with regard to those of America; both, in fact, have short feeble wings, small triangular bills, and long slender tails and feet. How then, it may be asked, can they be generically separated? The answer is not difficult. In the first place, the bill of the Platystera longipes is but slightly compressed towards the tip, and the under mandible, instead of being stout, is flat and thin; the wings are longer, which gives them a more pointed appearance; their structure is also different, the first quill being only half as long as the third; the toes are considerably smaller than those of the Lepturus, and the claws, instead of being slender and pointed, are broad, and much curved. Now, as these peculiarities of the wings and feet are typical of Platystera, we can have no hesitation in placing Platystera longipes in this, rather than in the last sub-genus. Nevertheless, it is an aberrant species, just as is Todus megacephalus in the sub-genus Todus; for independant of all other considerations, it has one distinguishing character,—the lateral toes are perfectly equal, whereas in all the other species of Platystera we yet know of, they are unequal. This latter structure, in fact, we see in the next modification of form, instanced by the Prit-prit of Le Vaillant, figured in the same work: here the bill is considerably broader, yet still gradually narrowed towards the end; the wings are longer, the tail shorter and even, and the feet differently formed; the inner toe is the shortest, and the outer connected to the base of the middle toe, as far as the first joint. This second modification brings us at once to the typical species of the group represented by the Platystera lobata, Sw. The bill now puts on the aspect of that of a genuine Tody; it is broad along its whole length, but with a sharp culmen; the rictus, or gape, is strongly bristled, the wings lengthened, and the tail-feathers broad and obtuse; but its two most remarkable characters are as follows: on the upper part of each eyelid is a semicircular, naked, and detached skin; completely analogous to what we see in Perspicilla; its corresponding type in the circle of the water-chats, (Fluvicolinæ); while, as if Nature determined that this peculiarity should not disturb the analogy of this group to the typical todies, she has given to this bird the feet of Todies viridis; the inner toe is connected to the middle as far as the first joint, while the connexion of the outer extends as far as the second joint. The syndactyle structure in both birds is the same, not only in sort, but in degree; and yet this is accompanied by so many differences in other respects, that no one would ever think of taking this relation for one of absolute affinity; that is, of placing the two birds next to each other.

We shall now offer some additional remarks upon

Platystera

In proportion to the number of species which enter into a group, so do we invariably find a proportionate degree of variation. Applying this universal law to the assemblage of birds forming the genus Todus, we observe that as the typical sub-genus contains the most in number, so does it exhibit the greatest variation of structure. Platystera, in like manner, ranks the next in extent, and we have thus been able to detect three distinct modifications of its typical characters. We have no doubt that several other species exist of this group; one is obviously the Môlenar of Le Vaillant, and we suspect the Capuchon blanc (Pl. 159.) may be another, although the presence of a crest is much against the supposition. All these we have described from the birds before us, but no public or private collection, however large, can be supposed to contain every thing. We must, therefore, now have recourse to our notes, among which we find the following, made some years ago, in the early stages of this analysis.

Platystera is united either to Conopophaga or to Platyrhynchus by a bird in the British Museum which belongs to Platystera, but which has a very short tail; short, unequal, and syndactyle toe, formed for perching, and quite as much united as those of T. viridis.

Here, then, is the fissirostral type of Platystera, approximating much closer than either of the three already pointed out to Conopophaga, and yet preserving the general characters of its own group. The importance of such a form is very great, for it not only gives us a repetition, even in a sub-genus, of the fissirostral type; but it brings Platystera in immediate conjunction with Conopophaga, the first group in the circle we have been so long in tracing, and the last to which we again return. Whether this Platystera, which we had named provisionally brevicauda, still exists in the National Museum, we know not; but at the time the above note was made upon it, that law of variation which renders Platyrhynchus the raptorial type of the genus Todus, had not been discovered; and this explains a part of the foregoing memorandum.

We will now compare the species representing the types of form in the sub-genera of Todus and Platystera, and ascertain in what way they resemble each other.

We were perplexed, for many years, in endeavouring to make out why it so frequently happened that in very small groups, like sub-genera, there are species agreeing most perfectly in their structure, except in a single point, i. e. the tail of one being very long, and of the other very short. In a family, or a sub-family, such a variation may be expected, because every ornithologist knows that these two forms of tail are always to be seen in good sized groups; the flycatchers, for instance, and in the thrushes and warblers: but such a decided difference has always been considered sufficient to constitute a generic character, and in former years, we, no less than the generality of modern systematists, carried this belief so far as to make it often the only character of a new genus. In this we have all much erred, not, indeed, in making the distinctions, but in giving them a higher value than they really possess,—a value, in short, which analysis would have shewn they were not entitled to. Greater experience, however, has solved this difficulty. In the first place, the long-tailed or rasorial form, very generally passes into the short-tailed or natatorial; and this, not by graduating steps, but as it were abruptly; that is to say, the difference of the tail alone marks the passage. The crow and the magpie, the blue and the long-tailed tit, are among the most familiar instances of this sudden change; not more striking, indeed, than those we have here exhibited in the sub-genera Todus and Platystera. Now, there are two modes of accounting for this; the first is, that Nature preserves her distinction of types even in the series of the species comprising a sub-genus, when that sub-genus is full and circular; and secondly, the two extreme aberrant types, which are the rasorial and the natatorial, always shew such a strong tendency to unite, that in such small groups they reciprocally impart to each other some of their characters. We see this in the genera Rhipidura and Megalophus, in the Fluvicolinæ and the Saxicolinæ, and in Conopophaga and Lepturus. In these two latter, the legs of both are remarkably long, but in Conopophaga, as in natatorial types, they are syndactyle, while in Lepturus, as in the Rasores, they are free, and the lateral toes equal. In maintaining, therefore, the correctness of the foregoing table, wherein long and short tailed birds are placed together as mere species, we only follow that law which Nature has manifested in so many other instances.

No test can more fully substantiate the fact, that the species of todies described really follow each other in the order we have placed them, than a comparative table, wherein their analogy to the sub genera of Todus are shewn. This we now subjoin.

This comparison must speak for itself. Having already shewn that the sub-genera in the last column represent the genera of the sub-family Muscicapinæ, and that there, again, are representations of the primary divisions of all birds, we know not how demonstration can be carried further. We think the complaint, in this instance at least, formerly brought against us, of making assertions instead of demonstrations, will be thought somewhat premature: seeing that a proposition must be first made, before the drift of the evidence to be adduced in its support can be well understood. We shall, therefore, now close this analysis of the genus Todus, and commence a survey of the last and most typical group of these insectivorous birds.

The genus

Muscicapa

is restricted, in this survey, to the genuine or typical flycatchers inhabiting the old world, and who never pursue their prey. From this habit we may term them the sedentary flycatchers, in contra-distinction to the hunting and the cursorial races, represented by the todies, the fantails, and the water-chats. Their distinguishing characters have already been intimated, but we shall now shortly recapitulate them: they are so few and simple, that if duly regarded, there will be no great danger of this genus being made, as it now stands in systems, a sort of general receptacle for all birds with flat bills, whose affinities cannot at the moment be made out. The sedentary flycatchers of the Old World are to be known by the prominent and leading peculiarities derived from their wings, feet, and bill: and although there are a few instances of other types possessing one of these characters, and although one out of the three may be wanting in the aberrant divisions of this very group, yet the average of variation does not extend further.³⁰ When, therefore, we have a flycatcher possessing two out of the three characters here assigned to the genus Muscicapa, we may safely search for it in the aberrant genera; but if two out of the three are wanting, it may be concluded that the bird does not enter into this group. As to the wings, their formation has already been explained; the first quill-feather is invariably spurious, or very short,—a character so absolute, that we know not a single exception: yet notwithstanding this diminution in the length of the primaries, the wings themselves are rather long than short, far exceeding those of Todus, and even the generality of the small Tyrannulæ, or tyrants of America. The feet are very peculiar, and are remarkable for their comparative shortness and feebleness of structure, when compared to the todies. Thus, although the toes are very small, and the hind one not unusually long; this latter is but little shorter than the tarsus, and this, again, is about equal with the length of the middle toe and claw:³¹ the lateral toes are always unequal, and the outer, which is the longest, is attached to the middle as far as the first joint. This syndactyle structure of the toes, and the general shortness of the feet, is quite in unison with the sedentary nature of these birds, who scarcely use their feet for any other office than to support them on their perch. The scutalation, or form and disposition of the scales upon the tarsi, deserve attention; because, although a minute character, it is a very constant one, and is quite different from that possessed by the tyrants. Among these birds the anterior scales only cover the front of the tarsus, and they are divided into four or five pieces, while the lateral scales, which protect the sides, are all of one piece: in Tyrannula, these side pieces, on the contrary, are entirely wanting; for the anterior scales completely envelope the tarsus, and the two edges meet behind. The bill of the present genus is here noticed the last, because it is the most variable of the characters here given, and cannot of itself be taken as an exclusive mark of distinction, unconnected with the wings and feet. Nevertheless the form of this member, in the present genus, has something so peculiar to the eye of the experienced ornithologist, that he will immediately detect, although he would find a difficulty in defining, its characters: It differs, of course, from that of the todies, in being much shorter and more triangular; that is, it begins to narrow towards the tip almost from its base; there is no danger, therefore, of a Muscicapa being mistaken for a Todus: the difficulty lies in distinguishing Muscicapa from Tyrannula,—the Old from the New World flycatchers. In the present genus, the bill, however, although equally broad, is more flattened on the sides, and the culmen or ridge is consequently more prominent, neither is the tip so much bent as in the tyrants. In its form, as just observed, there are considerable variations: in Muscipeta it is long, while in some of the Myïagra it is shorter and broader; but as these two divisions are the most typical, so have they the most depressed bills: in all the others, the sides towards the tips are compressed, and this is accompanied by a thickening of the under mandible, which is never seen in Muscipeta or Myïagra. The rictal bristles, or those at the base of the bill, vary in length, but they are always very stiff, and assume a decided character. Lastly, we may observe that the tail is never short or forked; its usual length is proportionate to the wings, but the termination is diversified, and is either even, rounded, or graduated. It deserves to be mentioned, that out of all the typical Muscipetæ and Myïagræ not one has been discovered with a green or olive-coloured plumage; the general hue being different shades of rufous, brown, grey, blue, and sometimes black, the latter colours having always a steel-blue gloss: this is analogous to what we find among the swallows, the types of the Fissirostres, as these birds are the types of the fissirostral division of the Dentirostres. The geographic range of the flycatchers is very wide, but it extends more longitudinal than lateral. One of the abberrant forms extends to Europe, and the most northern species is probably our common Muscicapa grisola. As we approach the tropics of India and Africa the typical species abound, and they may be said to have their chief metropolis in those regions. The species with even or slightly rounded tails, placed in the sub-genus Myïagra, are chiefly from the large islands which constitute the Australian province, while those retained under the name of Muscipeta seem to be equally spread over Asia and Africa; although we have not yet seen any from New Holland. Having now prepared the reader to understand the general nature of the group before us, we shall at once proceed to its divisions or sub-genera, distinguishing them by the following names:

1. Cryptolopha;
2. Muscipeta;
3. Myïagra;
4. Muscicapa; and,
5. Hyliota.

The first, fourth, and fifth form the aberrant group, already distinguished from those two which are typical, by their more narrowed bill, by the superior length or strength of their feet, and by the terminal half of the bill being laterally compressed: a structure which carries with it a proportionate increase of strength and thickness in the under mandible, so that its ridge or gonyx is often curved upwards. In the typical sub-genera neither of these latter characters are seen; the whole of the bill is depressed, and the under mandible is very flat.

Cryptolopha

is the rasorial sub-genus, and has hitherto remained undistinguished, the species having been confounded with other groups. It seems to represent Rhipidura in the pointed ends of the tail-feathers, but it differs from its prototype in several particulars. The bill is larger and stronger; the anterior scales of the tarsi are entire, and not in four or five pieces; and the hind toe is so long as nearly to equal the middle toe. The two groups, however, differ so materially in their manners, that they cannot possibly be mistaken; for even their analogies are obscure. Cryptolopha, indeed, may be distinguished at first sight from all the Indian flycatchers we have yet seen; for this is the only group in which the plumage of all that we have yet seen is olive-green. This is the only exception to our former remarks upon the colouring of the Old World flycatchers, and was intended, as all such general descriptions usually are, to be applicable alone to the pre-eminent typical examples; that is, in the present instance, to the sub-genera Muscipeta and Myïagra. We have no doubt, indeed, that many of the green flycatchers of South America truly belong to the sub-genus Lepturus, the last of the divisions in Todus; and we may therefore naturally expect to find the same colour continued to the group which succeeds, although that group is in the next circle, namely, that of Muscicapa. We already possess three species of Cryptolopha, and are acquainted with two or three others. In all these the upper plumage is olive-green, which, added to a prevalence of yellow on some part of their upper plumage, gives them all the appearance of being American Tyrannulæ. But this, in truth, is merely an analogous resemblance, a disguise, as it were, in which nature has clothed them, while the structure of their wings and tarsi are in complete accordance with the rest of the Old World flycatchers. Such species as evince the nearest approximation to Lepturus have consequently the bill less broad, the tarsi longer, and the tail more narrowed and slender; while such, on the other hand, as advance towards the sub-genus Muscipeta, or rather, as we suspect, constitute the types of this sub-genus, have the bill broader, the rictal bristles long, thick set, and very stiff (as in Rhipidura) with the tarsi shorter, and the tail broader and even. There is nothing therefore to associate these oriental flycatchers with the little tyrants of America, beyond their olive plumage; for they may be immediately recognized by that primary character,—a short spurious quill-feather,—which, without a single exception, distinguishes the Old World flycatchers from those of the New. There is a very interesting species of Cryptolopha in the Linn. Society’s Museum, sent from India, having a similar concealed crest to our Lepturus ruficeps. And even in the Cryp. poiocephala, which we shall now describe, the crown, although of a uniform colour, nevertheless sanctions the name of Cryptolopha, which we now apply to this division.

The sub-genus

Muscipeta

of Cuvier, will be here restricted to the long-tailed flycatchers of Africa and India, distinguished, at the first glance, by the excessive length of their two middle tail-feathers, which are often longer than all the rest of the bird together. These beautiful plumes, however, are only to be found in the males during the season of breeding, for at other times they have the tail like that of the female, that is, simply graduated, or very much rounded. It is not to be supposed, however, that Nature passes abruptly from such birds as are in the last division to these long-tailed flycatchers; and we accordingly find, that one species, at least, is destitute of these feathers at all seasons. Le Vaillant describes the long-tailed species as very wild and quarrelsome; but his Gobe-mouches mantelé is such a tame and gentle bird, that a pair of them actually made a habit of frequenting the inside of his tent, where they took their station on the furniture to catch the flies, destitute of all fear on his approach. He particularly alludes to this species “having an advantage” over the others in the superior ornament of a moveable crest of pointed feathers, which extend some way beyond the occiput; a sort of crest which is very different from those of its congeners. Here, then, we have two rasorial characters. But this is not all for this little species is the turkey-cock of its own group; it erects its crest, and spreads out its tail precisely as do the typical fowls.³² Our acquaintance with this remarkable bird unfortunately depends at present only upon the figure and description of Le Vaillant; we are therefore unprepared to say whether it really belongs to this sub-genus or to Rhipidura; the figures would lead to the former supposition, while the habits just mentioned would incline us to the latter. In either case, it is a most beautiful exemplification of the rasorial type. We have seen among the todies, that the variation of species is regulated by the same law as the variation of groups. Nor is this bird the only instance in the little group before us. We have the aquatic type in Le Vaillant’s Nebuleux, which he describes as thicker in the body, living only upon insects found near streams, and building its nest on boughs overhanging the water. This bird, moreover, is coloured black and white, and, but for its two long tail-feathers, might be mistaken for a species of Fluvicola. Next, we have the tenuirostral type in the Cordon noir of the same author, who describes the bill as altogether smaller and weaker than in any of the other species, and the tail as considerably less rounded; the figures, in fact, represent the lateral feathers as nearly even. Nor is the colouring of the plumage of this species to be overlooked; it very much resembles that of the wagtail, and has that broad pectoral collar which is so remarkably prevalent among grallatorial and tenuirostral types. All these instances of species putting on some one or more of the characters seen in the primary forms of nature are most remarkable, for they occur in a sub-genus which does not at present exceed ten or a dozen species: so that whatever doubts we might have in regard to the nomenclature of other specific types, it would be thought the height of absurdity to make each of these birds a sub-genus, because they are, in point of fact, types of form in the series of species.

The sub-genus

Myïagra

was defined some years ago by Messrs. Horsfield and Vigors as containing all those flycatchers which had the tail more or less even, and a shorter and broader bill.³³ This latter distinction, theoretically, appears to be very good; yet the difference is so very trifling between these and the latter, as hardly to be worth naming. As the tail, however, is one of the chief distinctions, we may still look upon M. plumbia (H. and V.) as one of the typical forms. The other character, which has been overlooked, is the superior length of the third quill-feather, which in this, and two or three other birds which are equally typical, is nearly, if not quite, as long as the fourth. In Muscipeta, on the contrary, the third quill is even shorter than the fourth and fifth. Now the passage between these two closely allied sub-genera may be thus traced. The first form which meets us on leaving the wedge-tailed Muscipetæ is seen in a bird from New Holland, now before us, and which we shall presently describe and figure, namely, the Myïagra longicauda. It is entirely blue, and has the graduated tail of Rhipidura and its prototypes; the bill, however, is unusually broad, and somewhat dilated at the base, while the bristles are so long as almost to reach—like those in the fan-tailed flycatchers—to the end of the bill. By this form we are prepared for the second, as seen in Myïagra latirostris, where the tail is shorter, and, although not graduated like the last, is yet decidedly rounded; while the bill is so short and broad, as immediately to remind us of the genus Todus, or rather of its sub-genus Platyrhynchus. The breadth of the bill lessens, and its length increases, in the Myïagra cærulia and torquata; and in the same proportion does the tail loose its roundness, until we come to M. rubiculoides and Plumlea (H. and V.), both of which have the tail-feathers completely even, and the wings, as already observed, more pointed. The fourth type of form is very remarkable; it is exhibited in a species from Africa in the Paris Museum. The head and bill is unusually large, while the crown is surmounted by a conspicuous pointed crest; the wings are lengthened, and the tail so short as hardly to project beyond them. Still more remarkable are the feet, which, although rather stout, are so excessively small, that the tarsus only measures four-tenths of an inch, being the exact length of the hind toe and claws: contrary, also, to any example yet known in the whole of this sub-family, the feet are of a beautiful yellow, with the claws deep black, while the anterior scales are divided into irregular hexagons, analogous to what we see among the gallinaceous birds. The whole aspect of this bird suggests the idea of a swallow flycatcher; yet it obviously combines just as many characters of the rasorial as of the fissirostral type. Its thick compact form, large head, short feet and tail, long wings, and glossy plumage, remind us of a swallow; while the stout tarsi, their hexagonal scales, and the long pointed crest, are so many indications of the rasorial type: for reasons which will presently appear, we shall view it in the latter light.³⁴ The fifth type of form we have not yet seen; it should intervene between this bird and M. longicauda, and represent the tenuirostral form. Hitherto, out of the numerous species that have passed under our inspection, there has been no one which will completely answer our expectations on this head, or against which some objections cannot be raised. When the extreme delicacy, however, of the analysis we are now making is considered, it can excite no surprise, that in the present state of ornithological knowledge, we are unprepared to close the circle of a sub-genus, or that we should be ignorant of one part of the succession of its species. Before proceeding to generalize these observations, we shall first describe one of the species above alluded to, namely, the Myïagra longicauda.

That the foregoing outline of the circle of Myïagra is founded on some solid basis, will appear more probable when we compare the species, here named as constituting types of form, with those of the long-tailed Muscipetæ and with the divisions of the entire genus.

It would be rain, in the present state of ornithology, to think of explaining the whole of these analogies; yet if a few are established, they will tend much to illustrate our preceding analogies. Rhipidura and Cryptolopha, as we have already seen, are representations of each other; and if Myïagra longicauda really belongs to that group, it becomes their representative also in the series of the species. Between the two typical series there are so many reciprocal analogies in structure, that nothing further need be said, seeing that we are in complete ignorance of the manners and habits of those birds, from which, no doubt, satisfactory evidence might be drawn; certain, however, it is, that nothing is yet known to invalidate the series in which they have been placed. On passing to the two other aberrant columns, we find all those with conspicuous crests coming parallel to each other, as Megalophus, Muscipeta flabellifera, and Myïagra flampes; this latter bird, by its long pointed wings and short tail, being also the type of form of the sub-genus Muscicapa. Lastly, the most aberrant types in each of the three columns which are filled up, are Monacha, Hyliota, and Muscipeta pectoralis, the only birds among the whole which have the narrowest bills.

We retain the original name of

Muscicapa

(Linnæus)

to that sub-genus which immediately follows Myïagra. All the birds coming under this designation have, in comparison to the three last divisions, longer and more pointed wings, stronger and more equal lateral claws, and shorter and more even tails. The bill, also, is materially different from all the other sub-genera, and more resembles that of Conopophaga: it is small, short, and rather strong, the sides being considerably compressed, although the base is still broad. These characters are more or less developed in different species; but they are sufficient, even in the most aberrant examples, to prevent any ornithologist, with proper attention, from confounding this group with any we have yet noticed in the family. The tarsi have also this peculiarity, that although they are often not longer than in Myïagra, or in Muscipeta, they are nevertheless stouter, and the scales which cover them in front, instead of being divided, are formed of an entire piece. This, although a minute character, is yet the most constant, and therefore one of the most important. The compression of the bill is accompanied by a thickening of the under mandible, the gonys of which, instead of being straight, is curved upwards; the bristles at the base, although well defined, and pointing directly forward, so as to separate these birds from the stone-chats,³⁵ are yet short, and by no means so strong as in the preceding divisions. The wings, as already intimated, are the longest and the most pointed of all the flycatchers: they generally reach to half or three-quarters the length of the tail, while their typical structure is no less peculiar: the first quill is completely spurious,—in other words, it is quite useless for any purposes of flight, and seems intended either to designate the natural situation of these birds in the scale of nature, or to serve as some protection to the base of the next or second quill, which very nearly reaches the end of the third, so that the second and third pen-feathers,—which in all the preceding sub-genera are short and graduated,—become the longest of all. The tail is rather short, and the termination is not only quite even, but assumes in the middle an inclination to being slightly forked. Such are the typical characters as exhibited by our common Muscicapa grisola and the two other European species. But before we attempt to show in what manner these characters are modified in the extra-European species, we shall figure and describe the Muscicapa albicollis.

Let us now compare the genuine flycatchers, as here characterized, with some other groups related to them by analogy, and with which they have been confounded by many of the best modern ornithologists. We think this comparison will be beneficial to the science, and not uninteresting to the amateur.

The European flycatchers very closely resemble both the stone-chats (Saxicola) and the robins (Erythaca) while they seem to approach very much to those little tyrants of America, which constitute the aberrant examples of Ptilogonys: the two last mentioned resemblances are strictly analogical, but nothing more. Muscicapa, however, in its own circle, represents the flycatching shrikes (Tyranninæ) in theirs; and it likewise represents Ptilogonys in the circles of the Tyranninæ: from both these, however, it is at once distinguished (independent of more obvious but variable characters), by the very small size of the first quill-feather. The strongest of these resemblances, however, is between Muscicapa and Saxicola, for here the spurious quill-feather and the whole structure of the wings is almost precisely the same. Neither will the bill altogether “serve our turn;” for although that of Muscicapa is rather more depressed, such a distinction, founded merely upon a comparative quality, is vague and unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, as one family lives chiefly upon the ground, and the other is never seen but upon trees, this difference of habit necessarily carries with it a difference of structure, and this is immediately apparent in the feet,—those of Saxicola being nearly half as large again as those of Muscicapa. The one, in fact, is constructed for perching only, the latter for perching and walking; hence the great length of the tarsus, and the complete separation of the toes in all the different genera of the Saxicolinæ,³⁶—a structure quite opposed to the shortness of the tarsus, and the union of the outer and inner toe, which pervades, more or less, through the whole of the Muscicapinæ.

The variations in the foregoing characters of Muscicapa, so far as they have come before us, will now be stated. Let us first, however, call the attention of the ornithologist to the last bird which has been mentioned in our account of Myïagra, because its structure will assist us materially in tracing the chain of progression. The Myïagra flavipes differs from all those in its own sub-generic circle, not only in the feet, but in the great length of the wings, and the shortness of the tail. Now this evidently points it out as an aberrant species, and gives an intimation, that in the group which is to come next, some species will be found having one or more of these characters, and yet partaking likewise of those more properly belonging to Myïagra. And such a bird has fortunately been described. The Myïagra macroptera,³⁷ in short, realizes precisely what the law of variation would lead us to expect. It is a Myïagra, according to M. M. Horsfield and Vigors, in its bill,

but the comparative length of the wings, and the shortness of the tail, distinguish it from the other species of that group; the wings reach to the extremity of the latter member.

Now as this structure is almost precisely what we see in M. flavipes, why not place both in one group? Here, however, the similarity ceases. M. flavipes has a conspicuous crest, because it is the rasorial type, while its feet are particularly short. M. macroptera has no crest, and its feet are fully as long as those of Muscicapa grisola.³⁸ It retains, in short, according to the account of its describers, nothing of Myïagra but its bill; for its wings, tail, and feet, are those of our Musdcapæ. It is seldom we can establish the connexion of two groups in so satisfactory a way: this sort of evidence, indeed, is more entitled to confidence when it can be drawn from the writings of those who become in this way unbiassed, and therefore trustworthy witnesses, than when it merely rests upon the inference of one who is advocating his own theory. The intelligent ornithologists who described this bird, seem to have had an idea of its being the connecting link between Myïagra and Muscicapa, although they have shown much judgment in discriminating it so well, that without having seen the bird, we feel fully persuaded it has been correctly described. According to these views, Myïagra macroptera, by its structure, comes in the circle of Muscicapa; and if any other proof was wanting, it will be found in the inference to be deducted from the following fact. Mr. Caley gives the following note upon the species:—

This bird has all the actions of the British robin red-breast, except coming inside houses: when a piece of ground was fresh dug it was always a constant attendant.

We repeat that we have had no opportunity of examining this bird; but were it not that our two best ornithologists had referred it to Myïagra, we should, upon this simple statement alone, have been impressed with a conviction that it really was a robin, because this assertion of Mr. Caley’s would seem to imply that it hopped like our red-breast upon the ground, a habit which no fissirostral bird is known to possess. But does this supposition militate against the probability of its being a true flycatcher? Something, it must be confessed, but not quite; for we shall now mention a bird as actually having the typical feet of a flycatcher, but which, in size, colour, and appearance, is so like a robin, that no one, even a professed ornithologist, would be able to distinguish one from the other, unless the feet and the wings were carefully examined. It is, in fact, the most extraordinary instance of disguise, or rather of complete analogy, that has ever occurred to our observation in the whole animal kingdom. Let the reader suppose a robin before him, and he has an exact picture of our Muscicapa erythaca. A single specimen of this bird is in the Paris Museum; nor were we perfectly satisfied it was not a deceptive preparation until we examined it most attentively, for the purpose of seeing that the feet were actually united by the skin to the body. It proved, however, in this respect, to be perfectly genuine; and we shall now figure and describe it.

The last sub-genus is

Hyliota

which agrees with Muscicapa and Cryptolopha in having the outer half of the hill compressed; but here this structure is carried to its extreme. Its length is sufficient to give to the bird an appearance of being a warbler: the base, indeed, is broad, but beyond the nostrils it suddenly contracts, and the remaining portion is so much compressed that its height (when viewed in profile) is much greater than its vertical breadth: the rictus, moreover, has merely a few setaceous hairs, and is destitute altogether of stiff bristles. Hyliota further differs from Muscicapa in having the claws broader, stronger, and more curved, and in the scales of the tarsi being divided into four pieces. And yet, notwithstanding these great deviations from the typical character of fly-catching birds, we feel fully persuaded that this is the tenuirostral type of the genus before us. The wings and tail are precisely those of M. albicollis. The outer toe is connected as far as the first joint; and the glossy blue-black plumage, white scapulars, and buff-coloured throat, is in complete unison with the family we are now treating of. The first aspect of the species now before us suggests the idea that it belongs to Platystera, while the breadth of the bill at its base indicates its insectivorous habits: its apparently anomalous structure, in other respects, is explained by the situation it holds as the tenuirostral type of its own genus. Hence its bill is the longest, and, like that of Monachus, it is considerably compressed; by the absence of bristles, and by the thick feathers on the rump, it preserves its analogy to the Cellepyrina, or caterpillar-catchers, without diminishing its affinity in other parts of its structure to Muscicapa, or its analogy in point of colour to Platystera. Such are the conclusions we have come to after some years reflection, and which we have elsewhere intimated.³⁹ At present we know but of one species; the sexes of which, unlike all the other types of Muscicapa, differ as remarkably in colour as do those of its prototype Platystera. And the student will remember, that the tenuirostral types are always those which have the most marked difference in the plumage of the sexes. The whole of the Ampelidæ, the order Grallatores, and the tribe of Tenuirostres, not to mention the Orioles, Psarianæ, and several others of minor note, are convincing proofs of this general law. It is well known, again, that nearly all tenuirostral types have the longest bills among their congeners: witness the humming-birds and the whole order of waders. We find this analogy, therefore, preserved in the present family; for this is a peculiar characteristic in Psaris, Perspicilla, Monacha, and Hyliota, groups of different ranks, yet representing each other in their own circles. An exception to this rule would seem to appear in Platystera, but length of hill is here the typical distinction of the genus: and if it is longer in the tenuirostral than either in the fissirostral or rasorial types of that genus, the analogy is still preserved; and such, in regard to Platystera, is actually the case. We have thought it necessary to illustrate Hyliota by these varied comparisons, because it stands at present as a single species, and there is consequently a want of that gradation to Cryptolopha which we find between such types as are fuller of examples. This species we shall now describe as the

Let us now proceed to the fifth and last group of this family. The

Eurylaminæ, or Broad-Bills

as before observed, constitute one of the primary divisions of this family. They are a most remarkable group of birds, whether we regard their appearance, or the extreme interest which attaches to their scientific elucidation. The different groups of flycatchers we have hitherto noticed have been small, delicate-shaped birds, seldom equalling the size of the robin, and generally smaller than a wren; but those we are now come to are of a very different character. Their average size is nearly that of a starling or small thrush. Their shape is thick and robust, and their head and bill enormously large; their whole aspect, in short, at the first glance, is so different from any other group, that the most unpractised eye would detect, without at first comprehending, their striking difference from all other birds. So far, therefore, we shall find this peculiarity of character a circumstance highly favourable for the investigation of their affinities, because it removes those difficulties which impeded the complete illustration of the intricate groups just noticed. And yet, notwithstanding this great dissimilarity in general appearance between the ordinary flycatchers and these birds, a more attentive examination of their structure proves them to be but a race of the same family, essentially possessing the same general structure, yet with some parts enlarged and others reduced; modifications, in short, which obviously indicate peculiar manners, and which tend to exhibit, at the same time, a higher developement of the fissirostral type than any we have yet noticed. All the species yet discovered have been found in Tropical Asia, where they represent, in the same latitudes, the todies of the New World. Linnæus and his followers, indeed, placed both in the same genus; but Dr. Horsfield, who discovered one species in Java, since distinguished by his name, characterized it as belonging to a distinct group. Unfortunately he was not able to give any account of its manners, further than that it was found in

one of the most distant and inaccessible parts of Java, covered with extensive forests, and abounding with rivers and marshes.

But Sir Stamford Raffles, speaking of another species, observes,

it frequents the banks of rivers and lakes, feeding on insects and worms. It builds its nest pendant from the branches of a tree or bush which overhangs the water.

We have thus two witnesses to the fact of two species of these birds habitually living in the vicinity of water.

The preceding observations renders it almost unnecessary to state the more minute peculiarities in, which these remarkable birds differ from all the other flycatchers; yet some of them deserve particular attention, as establishing their collateral affinities. The bill, notwithstanding its excessive breadth, is by no means so very much flattened as what we see in Muscicapa; for the culmen is sufficiently elevated to form a regular curve, while the tip is almost as abruptly hooked as that of a raptorial type, although the notch is very small; the lateral margins of the upper mandible are very much curved, and so much dilated as to fold over and completely hide those of the lower mandible, more especially at the angle of the mouth. The rictal bristles are comparatively very short, and do not protect the nostrils, whose situation and form is various in the subordinate types. The feet cannot be termed small or delicate, yet they are obviously of a weak construction, and adapted only for sedentary habits; their colour is always pale, and their structure completely syndactyle; the hind toe is proportionably very long, and equals the length of the tarsus, which latter is often without any posterior or lateral scales. Now there is no example of a foot, so constructed, in all the other genera of this family, except Megalophus, which, in like manner, has a large portion of the tarsus equally naked; while the proportionate length of all the claws is the same in both. Megalophus, in short, is the connecting link between the Eurylaiminæ and the Musclcapinæ; and we may now proceed to consider the former more in detail.

That natural groups, of the same rank, are very often vastly disproportionate in their extent, has been frequently observed; and upon another occasion we have attempted to show, that such numerical disproportion is absolutely essential to the harmony and consistency of the creation.⁴⁰ Now the group before us is another striking example of this inequality. Were it an imperfect circle, and were we unacquainted with those forms which connect it on both sides to other types, strong doubts might be reasonably entertained if a group, containing so few species, really represented a sub-family, and deserved to be placed in the same rank with the Muscicapinæ and the Fluvicolinæ. But this difficulty we are now about to remove. It has happened, most fortunately for our present purpose, that the industry of modern naturalists have transmitted to Europe, from different and remote localities, every one of those which we consider the primary types of the Eurylamidæ; so that we shall now venture, after patiently waiting several years for this event, to submit to the public our elucidation of the whole group. All the species yet discovered of this sub-family we accordingly arrange under one or other of the following divisions, which we shall distinguish as Cymbirhynchus, Eurylaimus, Serilophus, Psarisoma, and Platystoma. It will subsequently appear that these are types of genera, and we shall now give the distinguishing characters of each in detail. The genus, named by Mr. Vigors,

Cymbirhynchus

is represented by the Todus nasutus of the old ornithologists, and it differs in several remarkable particulars from all its congeners. The bill is not only broad but high, so that when viewed in profile it seems to belong to a conirostral bird; the under mandible is consequently strong, and almost as deep as the upper, the gonyx taking an angulated ascending curve; the rictus is defended by three or four long bristles; the bill is not only powerful in its general character, but it has, something like that of the toucans, a thickened margin. Another peculiarity is to be found in the nostrils, which are perfectly naked, and situated towards the middle of the bill; the aperture is oval, and without any rim or membrane; the tail, although graduated, is of the average length of ordinary birds; but, in other respects, the structure accords with the remaining species.

The next form is that to which we retain Dr. Horsfield’s original name of

Eurylaimus

Here we have the bill more flattened, particularly the under mandible, the gonys of which is nearly straight; the nostrils are placed close to the front of the head, and are surrounded with a narrow membrane. The rictal bristles, which are so conspicuous in the last genus, are here very short and weak, and the dilated base of the under mandible very remarkable. The Eurylaimus Horsfieldii and Sumatranus⁴¹ belong to this genus, and there are probably other species. In the last named bird, the dilation of the bill is so great that it actually exceeds the breadth of the head, broad as it is; and in the Paris specimen, the margin has an appearance of being obscurely and irregularly crenated. In this bird, also, the rictus is quite smooth; so that it is more typical than Horsfieldii. The tail in this group is rather short; although this, of course, is variable.

The next type⁴² we have named

Serilophus

it is represented by that beautiful and interesting bird, the Serilophus lunatus, recently discovered near Rangoon, where several of them were shot by Major Godfrey. Here, again, although the information on its manners and habits is very concise, it is peculiarly applicable to our purpose. Major Godfrey observes,

that it inhabits the thickest jungles, and that its food was found, upon minute investigation, to consist entirely of berries and fruits.⁴³

The generic and typical peculiarities of this bird are peculiarly interesting. The first aspect, notwithstanding many dissimilarities, reminds the ornithologist of the true chatterers (Bombycilla), the plumage having the same silky gloss, and the head being surmounted, as in those birds, with a conspicuous, pointed, and pendant crest. The wings are very remarkable, uniting the two chief characters of the rasorial and of the fissirostral structure the first is manifested in the suddenly attenuated and pointed ends of the primary quills, almost precisely similar to those of some species of Fluvicola; while the secondary quills, by their broad, truncated, and indented termination, give us the fissirostral character, so eminently developed in the Meropidæ and many other types. These peculiarities leave us in no doubt where to look for the analogies of Serilophus, and induces us to view it, by the preponderance of these characters, as the rasorial type.

The next in the natural series is our genus

Psarisomus⁴⁴

represented at present by a single species, and of which we can only speak from the figure and description published by Dr. Royle.⁴⁵

We now come to the genus

We have now described the last type of form, which, to establish the circularity of the Eurylaiminæ, should not only represent one of the primary types of Nature, but also show a disposition to unite with Cymbirhynchus, which was our first type. Now this is a demonstration which can very rarely be made good where the species, as in the present instance, are very few. But here, again, we hope to determine not only the primary types of the Eurylaiminæ, but of proving their circularity. The genus Cymbirhynchus, it will be remembered, differs from all the others we have noticed in one very peculiar character,—the base of the bill being marked by a thickened rim. Now this is precisely one of the characters of the type before us; and these two birds are the only instances in the group of the rictus being strongly bristled. If any other evidence was necessary to show this union, it maybe drawn from the fact of M. Lesson having actually brought Cymbirhynchus and Platystomus into one genus, distinct from the other Eurylaiminæ, which he names Erolla. The circle is thus closed; the series follow each other in the usual order; and we have the following beautiful illustration of the primary types of the ornithological circle.

If we consider the Eurylaiminæ as constituting the sub-typical division of the family of Muscicapidæ, it will of course follow that Eurylaimus, as exhibiting the most depressed and the strongest hooked bill, is the type of its own circle. This is further proved by Platystomus, which is the fissirostral type, evincing such an immediate connexion to Cymbirhynchus, which must consequently be the sub-typical form, these two types always following each other. We find, in confirmation of this law, that the Dentirostres follow the Fissirostres in the tribes of the Insessores, and the Raptores follow the Natatores in the orders of the whole class. Eurylaimus being therefore the type, represents the insessores, and Cymbirhynchus is the sub-typical; the other genera speak for themselves. For although we know little of Psarisoma, and therefore cannot establish its direct analogies to the Tenuirostres, it has confessedly the smallest mouth and bill of the whole group.

If, again, we compare the above five genera with the primary divisions of the family, another harmonious series of relations come to light.

In order to understand why the genus Cymbirhynchus stands opposite the Eurylaiminæ, we must remember that it is Eurylaimus which is the preeminent type of its own particular circle; and that, consequently, Cymbirhynchus becomes the sub-typical genus. Platystomus and Querula agree, not only in the general cast of their plumage, but actually in the structure of their lengthened wings, the proportion of their quill-feathers, and in their unusually small feet. It is, in short, by the approximation of these two forms, that the circle of the entire family becomes manifest. Psarisomus is an evident representation of the Psarianæ, and seems to have put on the very plumage of Pachyrhynchus Cuvierii; while Serilophus, in like manner, appears to have borrowed the pointed quills and broad secondaries of the Fluvicolinæ. Thus the great dissimilarity between the types of the Eurylaiminæ, which, under a confined view, appears altogether anomalous, may be accounted for on the most simple principles; namely, that besides being bound together by some prominent and general characters, they are also intended to teach us what are their immediate allies, and the nature of the five great divisions of the whole family.

Lastly, by comparing the two typical divisions of the whole family with each other, we shall not only have a clearer exposition of each, but we shall see at a glance the relations which each circle, in its genera, bears to the other.

Todus and Eurylaimus agree in having the rictus but slightly, or not at all, bristled; while in Muscicapa and Cymbirhynchus these bristles are very long. Megalophus and Serilophus are the rasorial types of their respective circles, and both are remarkable for their beautiful crests. Monacha and Psarisomus represent each other through the medium of the Psariana; while the tail is conspicuously developed, although in different ways, both in Rhipidura and Platystomus. In this manner we might test these two circles through the whole class of ornithology, and gain the same results; for as every natural group is but a representation, under different modifications, of the five primary types of Nature, it follows, that if they agree with one, they will agree with all. In regard to the aberrant sub-families, represented by the genus Querula, Psaris, and Fluvicola, the circles, though imperfect, are proved to be natural, for they have their representations in the two we have been comparing; and, therefore, if they belong to this family at all,—and this cannot admit of a doubt,—they will follow each other in the order we have placed them: and this point, also, has been established by the preceding analysis. Before the discovery of Platystomus, the affinity of Querula to the Eurylaimina might have been doubtful; but it seems to be no longer so. And, setting aside all other considerations, these two birds alone agree in the curved form of the commissure; while the Pachyrhynchus pectoralis connects Querula, on the other side, to the great series of the Muscicapidæ, through Psarianæ and Fluvicolinæ. Future discoveries will no doubt fill up the smaller links, and probably alter some of the location of the types; but, until that period arrives, we know not any fact or argument sufficiently strong to induce us to suspect the general principles of the arrangement of the family to which this volume of the Naturalist’s Library has been devoted.

Appendix

Synopsis of Species, apparently new, alluded and referred to in this Volume.

Muscicapa ruficauda

Grey-brown above; cinereous-white beneath; eyes encircled with a white ring; tail rounded, fulvous-brown.

Inhabits India. Total length, 6 inches; bill, gape, \(\frac{7}{10}\); front, \(\frac{1}{2}\); wings, 2\(\frac{3}{4}\); tail beyond, 1\(\frac{1}{2}\); base, 2\(\frac{1}{2}\); tarsus hardly\(\frac{6}{10}\). The colouring of this specimen is obscure and somewhat peculiar, so as to excite the suspicion of its being a young bird, or female; but its general structure does not agree with any other we have hitherto seen. The head is cinereous grey, brighter on the sides, and graduating from the neck into a fulvous-brown, which deepens, again, into ferrugineous on the tail; the wings are like the back; the fore parts of the throat and breast are pale cinereous, which becomes white on the middle of the belly; under tail-covers pale fulvous; the tail is slightly rounded; the tarsi are very short, but the toes large and strong. The form of the bill, its stoutness, and compressed sides, accords with that of the Mus. rubecola; and both offer a miniature resemblance to the genus Tephrodornis among the Laniadæ; the bill, in fact, is shrike-like; the first joint of the outer toe is free, and the inner one is slightly shorter.

Muscicapa thalassina

Entirely greenish-blue; beneath paler; lores grey; fourth quill the longest; tail even; wings three inches long.

Inhabits India. Total length, 6 inches; bill, gape, \(\frac{6}{10}\); front, \(\frac{3}{10}\); wings, 3; tail beyond, 1\(\frac{1}{2}\); base, 2\(\frac{1}{2}\); tarsus, \(\frac{6}{10}\). General size and structure of the last, except in the bill, which, although small, has the short and dilated form, typical of Myïagra, to which it obviously leads, although it retains the short and stout feet of M. ruficauda. This species closely resembles the Mus. melanops of Nepaul in its size, and much in its colour; but it has not the same changeable tints: the lores are not velvet-black, and the wings only measure 3, instead of 3\(\frac{3}{10}\). This difference of colour, slight as it may appear, is very observable when the two species are compared; the fourth quill is the longest.

Muscicapa latirostris

Grey above; white beneath; head not striped; bill short and broad; wings two inches and three-quarters long; the third and fourth quills equal and longest.

Inhabits India. Mus. Nost. Total length, 5 inches; bill, gape, \(\frac{13}{20}\); front, \(\frac{4}{10}\); wings, 2\(\frac{3}{4}\); tail beyond, \(\frac{3}{4}\); base, 2; tarsus, \(\frac{1}{2}\). Colour almost exactly the same as M. grisola, but smaller, and without any distinct stripes on the crown or under plumage, nor are the inner wing-covers tinged with fulvous; the bill is much shorter and considerably broader, and the second quill-feather is only as long as the sixth.

Muscicapa leucura

Above fulvous-brown, immaculate; beneath whitish; tail rounded, black; the lateral feathers white at their basal half.

Inhabits India. Total length, 4\(\frac{3}{4}\) inches; bill, gape, 1\(\frac{1}{2}\); front, \(\frac{4}{10}\); wings, 2\(\frac{6}{10}\); tail beyond, \(\frac{3}{4}\); base, 2; tarsus, \(\frac{13}{20}\). Smaller than latirostris, but of the same general structure, except in the bill, which is shaped like that of M. grisola, although its size is much smaller. The drab-brown of the back is very uniform, and equally spreads over the wings, the third, fourth, and fifth feathers of which re longest and nearly equal; lores whitish; under parts white, tinged with brown on the sides and breast, and with fulvous on the flanks; the under tail-covers and basal half of the lateral tail-feathers, are pure white; the outer half of the rest, and the whole of the middle feathers, are deep black; the middle and the outermost pair are rather shorter than the others. Bill and feet blackish.

Muscicapa picata

Above grey; beneath white; wings and tail deep black; the former with a white band at the base of the quills and on the margin of the tertials; second quill not much longer than the sixth.

Inhabits Western Africa. Total length, 5\(\frac{1}{4}\) inches; bill, front, \(\frac{7}{20}\); wings, 3; tail, beyond, 1; base, 2\(\frac{1}{2}\); tarsus, \(\frac{13}{20}\). General structure, except in the wings, of M. albicollis, but the size is larger, and the bill rather narrower. The front has a very slender black line, and a whiter shade above it. The wings and covers are deep black, excepting those feathers nearest the body, which are grey; the white band which passes along the tertials extends to the edges of some of the greater wing-covers, while that which is at the base of the quills does not traverse the three outermost; the upper covers and the tail are deep black, the latter being very slightly forked; the under parts are white, tinged with grey on the breast.

Myïagra latirostris

Above, entirely dark glossy cinereous; ears and sides of the head the same; chin and throat rufous-orange; the rest of the under plumage white; bill short and very broad; tail rounded.

Todus rubicula? Lath. Supp. ii. 147.—Moucherette à gorge rousse, Paris Mus.

Bill and legs brown; outer and middle toe connected as far as the first joint; inner toe much the shortest; two outer tail-feathers very slightly tipt with white; plumage glossy slate colour; the throat, from the chin to the upper part of the breast, is coloured like that of the robin, beyond which the under plumage is pure white.

Total length, about 6\(\frac{1}{4}\); bill, gape, \(\frac{7}{10}\); front, \(\frac{7}{20}\); wings, 2\(\frac{6}{10}\); tail beyond, 2\(\frac{2}{10}\); base, 2\(\frac{7}{10}\).

Myïagra flavipes

First very short, bright yellow; plumage above, and on the throat and breast, deep black, glossed with greenish; body beneath white; head with a lengthened pointed crest.

Inhabits Senegal? Mus. Paris. Total length, 6 inches; bill, gape, 1; front, \(\frac{7}{10}\); wings, 3\(\frac{6}{10}\); tail beyond, \(\frac{3}{10}\); tarsus, \(\frac{4}{10}\). The general structure of this curious bird, as already intimated, is very peculiar; but, upon the whole, I am disposed to consider it the crested species of the sub-genus Myïagra, with, which, it agrees in its even tail: its bill, however, is that of Muscipeta, its long wings those of Muscicapa, while its excessively short feet are without parallel in this family. The upper plumage is of the darkest black, glossed with sea-green, and this colour extends in front of the throat so far as to cover the breast; the rest of the under plumage is white, varied with black on the flanks; the bill is unusually long and very flat; the tip abruptly hooked; the crown has a lengthened procumbent crest which ends in a point, and the tail is so short as hardly to exceed the wings. At the base of the primaries is a conspicuous white spot; bill and thighs black; feet bright yellow, stout; the claws strong, compressed, and deep black; anterior scales of the tarsi divided into irregular hexagons.