1870.—D. G. E lliot, ‘ P roceedings op t h e Zoological S ociety- of L ondon.’
Phasianus insignis, P . Shawi, and P.formosanus described. • Species 69.
1870.—H artlaub an d F insch, ‘ R eisen in O s t -A frica. ’ .
Numida coromta described. Species 70.
1870.— T. C. J e rdon, ‘ P roceedings of t h e A s iatic S ociety of B engal. ’
Ceriornis JBlythi and Lophophorus Sclateri described. Species 72;
1870.—G . R. G ray, ‘ H an d-L is t of B ir d s . ’
This valuable work contains, with the exception of Phasianus elegans, all the species which had been described up to the date
of its publication. The same classification and determination of species which I have already noticed in the ‘List o f Gailinæ’
is preserved; and the remarks previously made upon that work are equally applicable here. Following Drs. Hartlaub and Fin sell,
the South-African Guinea-fowl is divided into two species, called respectively Numida comuta N coromta. The Meleagris gailo-
paoo is presented as M. americana o f Bartram, instead of M. fe ra as given in the ‘ Gailinæ.’
1871.—D . G. E lliot, ‘ P roceedings of t h e Zoological S ociety o f L ondon.
Euplocamus Andersoni described. Species 73.
1871.—D. G. E lliot, ‘ P roceedings o f t h e Z oological S ociety of L ondon;’
Numida Granti described as distinct. ■ Species 74.
1871.— D. G. E lliot, ‘ A nnals a n d M agazine of N atural H istory. ’
Argus ocellatus. Description of this species given. Species 75.
1871.—T . W . W ood, ‘ A nnals a n d M agazine of N atural H istory.’
Argus bipunctatus described as distinct. Species 76.
1872.— R. S winhoe, ‘ P roceedings of t h e Z oological S ociety of L ondo n .’
Plmianus Ellioti and Pucrasia Darwini described. Species -78.___________________
CLASSIFICATION.
The position o f the family of the Phasianid®, the. most typical and important o f those which , compose the order Gallin®, is
fortunately not one about which much discussion is required. The order finds its natural place between the Columbid® on the one
hand and the Struthious birds, such as the Ostriches and their allies, on the other. The composition \;p:§ th e Gallin®;'however, is
one of those' points• upon which naturalists are-not-yet. entirely agreed; and; certain families have been in c lu d ed in it by /authors
at various times, whose members have, possessed not- one characteristic appertaining to the Gallinaceous birds; With the greater!
number o f writers the order is considered properly to contain six families, viz. Pteroclid®, Tetraonid®, Phasianid®, Cracid®, Mega-
podid®, and Tinamid®. Gray adds one more, that o f the Chionidid®, followed, however, in this respect by no other ornithologist.
This last lias no claim whatever; to be placed with the Gallin®, as its members, in their structure, are pluyialine, finding their nearest
ally.perhaps in a species like Hcematopus niger, and are. far removed from the Gallinaceous birds. In my ‘Monograph of the Tetrao-.
nin®,’ published in 1865, I stated that I should be inclined to exclude from the Gallin® the families Pteroclid® and Tinamid®,.as being,
more closely1 allied to the Columbid® and Struthionid®, respectively, than to the other families o f this order. I am now sustained;
in this opinion by the conclusions of Prof. Huxley*, who, after .a thorough investigation of. the .two families in question, decides,
that the Pteroclid® are completely intermediate between the two groups Alectoromorph® (which includes the other families of
Gallin® except Tinamid®) and the Peristeromorph® (or Pigeons)—and, moreover, states that they cannot be included within' either
of these groups without destroying its definition, while they are perfectly definable in themselves.' Hence, I think, the only advisable
course is to make them into a group by themselves, o f equal value with the other two, under :the head of Pteroclomorph®. ,The
Tinamid® form another group, to which the author o f that remarkable paper has given the name of Tinamomorph®; and Mr. Parker
has clearly shown, in his great work on the Gallinaceous Birds and Tinamous, that the latter are much more nearly allied to the
Struthiones than to any family of Gallin®. The order 'o f the Alectoropodous Gallin® would therefore. consist, of .• four - families,
resembling each other in a great degree in structure and habits, and comprising a well-defined and compact ornithological division.
Among the Alectoropodes three groups are distinguished, according to Prof. Huxley, by their- osteological characters. . ‘‘The Numid®
differ from the other members of this division in the- absence of any backward: process of the second - metacarpal, a n d ' in-' the
* On the Classification and Distribution of the Alectoromorphte and Heteroinorpha;, P. Z. S. (1868) p. 294.
obtuseness and Somewhat outward inclination o f the costal processes; The acromial process of the scapula is also singularly recurved.
In all the rest the backward process o f the second metacarpal is distinctly developed, and the costal processes are more acute
(generally very much so) and pass more directly forwards. Among these the Meleagrid® arc peculiar in three respects: (1 ) the
length o f the ilium from the centre of the acetabulum to its posterior margin .(which may be called the postacetabular length) is
greater than the distance from the same point to the atiterior margin of the ilium (or pr®acetabular len g th ); (2 ) viewing the pelvis
from above, the postacetabular area is longer than it is broad ; (3 ) tlie furcula is singularly weak and straight (viewed laterally)
a n d has a straight rod-like hypocleidium. In all the? Other genera which I have examined, the pr®acetabular length is greater
than, or, in th e solitary ;case of Tetrao cupido, equal to, the postacetabular, the postacetabular area is broader than it is long,
the lateral contoiir of the furcula moré curved, and the hypocleidium expanded antero-posteriorly. The great series of Galline, Pavonine,
Phasianihe, and Tetraoniné birds included under the title o f Phasianid®, which offer these characters, present two types of structure,
the one of wh ich -may b e termed Galline, arid th e other Tetraonine, and which are well' defined and contrasted in their extreme
fdriris, though I am by no means' clear that they do riot, graduate into one another. The two series of forms meet among the
Partridges and Quails—Perdix lying orr the Tetraonine, Cacabis, Rollulus, Francolinus, and Coturnix on the Galline side of the
boundary. In the proper Phasianin® (Plmianus, Thaumaled) and in Pucrasia, the pelvis has reached an indifferent point,
being neither specially Tetraonine nor specially Galline; but that of the Lophophorin® ( Lophophorus, Tctraog'allus) is more decidedly
Galline. The Peacocks are the > mósti aberrant forms this series, from the curious modification of the postacetabular area of the
pelvis. The costal processes of- the sternum arjeriobtuse and relatively short, the'acromium is somewhat recurved, and the backward
p ro c e s s , o f ,the second metacarpal is small. In several iqtf these circumstances they, come nearer Numida than any other of the
Gallotetraonine series do. On the other hand they seem to be closely allied to Lophophorus, in which genus the pelvis exhibits a
tendency towards the Pavonine form, and the aeromium is slightly recurved.”
In the arrangeirient of the Phasianid® it is impossible to produce any connected system, as many of the genera are widely
separated from each other, presenting but few characters in common beyond those possessed by all the Gallin®, while many
links requisite to form an unbroken line o f all the members o f the family are unknown a t the present day. Another difficulty
which prevents any regular transition is caused by some genera exhibiting more or less close affinities with others between
which ’ a> wide separation exists. Witness Paw, as above cited, which, although perhaps closely allied to Lophophorus, is still
in certain; characters near to Numida, while this last is far apart from Lophophorus. Some writers consider that the Numida
should not be included among the Phasianid®; but the relationship to Pavo, as stated by Prof. Huxley, proves that their
proper placeáis with this family. have divided the Phasianid® into eight subfamilies, composed of those species which -seem
to form natural groups o f themselves, as compared with those which constitute the remaining portion of the family: these
subfamilies comprise eighteen genera, divided into various subgenera whenever it was necessary to indicate individual peculiarities
that caused their possessors to differ from d ílié r species to which they were closely allied, but which were not of sufficient
importance to bestow a separate generic rank. The first of these Iwhich presents itself, according to the arrangement I would
propose for the Phasianid®, is Pavonin®. It naturally comprises the four genera Paw, Argus, Pohjplectron, and Crossoptilon.
This last, although heretofore placed by authors among the Phasianin®, I consider more appropriately finds its position with the
subfamily in which I have now included it. With regard to the members of the genus Paoo, it is simply impossible to accord
them a place where their affinities . for Lophophorus and Numida would make it desirable, as the latter genus naturally comes last
in the series, and, of the two, Pavo is much more closely - related to Lophophorus. The second subfamily is Lophophorin®, containing
Lophophorus, followed by the aberrant genus I have designated as Telraophasis (which apparently leads off to the Snow-
Partridges or Tetraogalli). Ceriornis and Pucrasia I pla.ee next the Meleagriri®, composed of its single genus Meleagris, which
leads off towards the Cracid®. This is . followed by Phasianin®, comprising Phasianus, Thaumalea, Euplocamus, and Ithaginis.
These last naturally lead to the genus Gallus, which forriis the subfamily Gallin®. • The peculiar forms of Agelasles and P/midus,
constituting the subfamily Agelastin®, connect the Jungle-fowls with the members of Numidin® through the single species recognized
in this work as Acryllium vulturimm, which is separated from the genus Numida by the possession of a rudimentary spur, and by
the élongated feathers of the neck, breast, and tail. The above arrangement is of course in some degree an artificial one, as
must necessarily be the case with any that is attempted with this family, since so many links in the chain are wanting, which
probably never was a t any one period complete, the theory of evolution requiring too long a lapse of. time for its development
to permit many more species to exist a t one; period than we have now. living. That the Gallo-Columbine birds have had one and
a common ancestry is most likely!; and the groups designated by Prof. Huxley as the Peristeromorph®, or Pigeons, Pteroclomorph®,
or Pigeon-Grouse, and Alectoromorph®, or Pheasants and Grouse, form a very natural series, of which, in a direct line of descent
from their mutual source, the Pteroclomorph® áre the nearest representatives of which we have any knowledge.
O f the eighteen genera composing the family of the Phasiauid®, all are founded upon structural characters which appear
sufficiently ample to accord their possessors such distinctive rank;- but an increase of these, as has been attempted by many
prévious writers, seems practically unnecessary. For the seventy-six species now known to compose the Phasianid®, over sixty
different genera have a t various times been proposed, or nearly one f o r . every species, which fact only shows the extreme length
which. at various times the systematists have gone, and what latitude they permitted themselves in classifying their subject. In