NOVITATES - American Museum of Natural History

AMEIRI[CAN MUSEUM 

NOVITATES 

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY 

CITY OF NEW YORK APRIL 2, 1951 NUMBER 1496 

A CLASSIFICATION OF RECENT BIRDS 

BY ERNST MAYR AND DEAN AMADON 

During the course of incorporating the Rothschild Collection of 

birds with the general collection of the American Museum of 

Natural History, an attempt was made to arrive at a natural 

arrangement for each family or other unit. This often led to 

rather detailed studies or to intensive efforts to determine the 

correct position of difficult genera. A number of publications 

growing from these studies are included in the bibliography (see 

titles by Amadon, Chapin, Delacour, Mayr, Vaurie, and Zimmer). 

They relate primarily to Old World families not yet included 

in Peters' "Check-list" for which no authoritative list 

exists comparable to Hellmayr's for the New World. 

The principal purpose of this paper is to give these findings more 

general expression. We have of course incorporated the work of 

others whenever known to us and have included the non-passerine 

groups, although few changes are made from the now wellestablished 

sequence of Wetmore (1934, followed by Peters). 

Indeed we have throughout attempted to make no changes from 

the established sequence except when they are clearly indicated 

by recent evidence. Occasion is taken to give a corrected count 

of species in each family of birds; such a count proved a useful 

feature of a previous paper by the senior author (Mayr, 1946). 

As a result of various discoveries and recent revisions the total 

number of species in the present list is 8590 as compared with 

8616 in the previous one. The change within five years amounts 

to less than one-half of one per cent. Because of the large number 

of insular forms of doubtful status, the number of species of birds 

will always remain an estimate. The final figure may vary by 

several hundreds either way, depending on the point of view of the 

enumerator. The five "species" of Todus or the three of Ryn-

2 AME3RICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 1496 

chops, for example, might be considered races just as have the 

former "species" of Anhinga. Further study of continental 

forms, on the other hand, often gives clear-cut answers as to the 

racial or specific status of forms previously of dubious status. 

The result of the two recent counts indicates, however, that the 

final figure will be within 2 per cent of 8600. For all practical 

purposes this figure will be satisfactory as a very close approach 

to the actual number of species of living birds. 

We would like to express our appreciation to Mr. James L. 

Peters for providing revised figures for some of the families of 

South American mesomyodian song birds and to Dr. R. C. 

Murphy for up-to-date figures of the number of species in some of 

the sea bird families. We have profited greatly from a painstaking 

examination of our manuscript by Dr. J. Van Tyne. 

Two important aims of any classification are to keep related 

groups as close together as possible and to put ancestral groups 

first, derived groups later. In a list that does not include fossil 

forms, the second of these principles can have only limited expression. 

Specialization is often a clue to relationship and phylogenetic 

sequence, but de-specialization may occur and much 

phylogenetically meaningless specialization exists. Cotingas, for 

example, appear more specialized than most of the Oscines, but 

the structure of the syrinx and tarsus, as well as other evidence, 

indicates that the Oscines are a later, more advanced group than 

the cotingas. 

There is no particular difficulty in incorporating the above aims 

in a classification so long as a single, non-branching sequence is 

involved. Difficulties arise in a branching system, for it is impossible 

to pursue all avenues of descent simultaneously in a 

linear sequence of names. Inevitably one must follow each 

branch in succession to its most recent end twig and then go back 

to the main stem and repeat the process. 

The problem of the relationship of the avian orders is an old one 

and one that will probably never be solved satisfactorily. One 

point that is frequently overlooked is that all living birds are exceedingly 

specialized in different directions and that this specialization 

had its beginning in the remote past. Perhaps the most 

specialized of known birds is Hesperornis, which lived in the Cretaceous. 

The Eocene Diatrymca is perhaps more specialized than 

any bird that lives today. The connections between the living 

orders are lost in antiquity, and their analysis is further obscured 

by much convergent evolution of habitus type.

1951 A CLASSIFICATION OF RECENT BIRDS 3 

Predators, for example, evolve a hooked bill and sharp claws. 

It is now generally accepted that hawks and owls are not closely 

related, but Hudson (1948) supplies evidence that even the hawks 

may be a polyphyletic group. Hesperornis (Hesperornithes), the 

loons (Gaviae), and the grebes (Podicipedes) are often cited as 

forming a group of three related orders in view of the structure of 

their rear limbs, but as Stolpe (1935) has shown, the anatomical 

similarities that have been cited as evidence for relationship are 

actually functional convergences. A better known example of 

convergence is that of the "Ratites," a group which consists of at 

least five unrelated groups of birds, which have become flightless 

secondarily and attained large size. Many other cases of convergent 

evolution have been unmasked recently among the passerine 

birds, e.g., the "shrikes," "titmice," "finches," "warblers," 

and others (see below). In view of the frequency of convergence 

among birds, it seems mandatory that some of the other heterogeneous-appearing 

orders of birds (e.g., the Gressores, Grues, and 

Laro-Limicolae) be reexamined to evaluate the authenticity of 

relationship of the included families and suborders. Some of 

them (e.g., the Thinocoridae, Turnicidae, and Mesoenatidae) 

have, of course, long been a puzzle to taxonomists. 

The other extreme is provided by such groups as the Sphenisci 

and Tubinares, which appear exceedingly different but are clearly 

related, as first pointed out by Furbringer and later confirmed by 

Simpson (1946). The relationship of the kiwis to the moas, and, 

if confirmed, the relationship of the turacos to the gallinaceous 

birds would also be illustrations of highly dissimilar but related 

groups. 

The existing orders of birds are thus the terminal twigs of an 

exceedingly ramified phylogenetic tree, and it is rather immaterial 

in what exact sequence many of the orders are listed. Portmann 

(1938) is convinced that the gallinaceous birds are the most primitive 

of living birds. Stresemann (1927-1934) also placed them 

near the beginning, yet Wetmore lists them as the nineteenth 

order. In view of our scanty knowledge of relationships and the 

uneven rate of specializing trends, it is often impossible to decide 

which of two orders is the more primitive or ancestral. 

The use of the ending "-formes" for ordinal names has met 

with considerable opposition among zoologists who are reluctant 

to see such a venerable name as, for example, "Lepidoptera" replaced 

by "Papilioniformes." We have followed Stresemann in

4 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 1496 

using the older ordinal names, but when those used by Wetmore 

have a different root they are given in parentheses. 

RATITES 

The problem of ratite phylogeny continues to receive much 

attention. The present consensus is that the main groups of these 

birds are of independent origin. Stresemann's suggestion that 

the kiwis (Apterygidae) be placed in the same order as the moas 

(Dinornithidae) is followed. McDowell (1948) may well be correct 

in believing the rheas to be allied to the tinamous, but we 

doubt whether they should be placed in the same order, pending 

further study. 

In the literature one finds records of moas and kiwis from 

Australia and of elephant birds from Africa. In our opinion all of 

these records are based on such fragmentary material as to be 

subject to doubt. Oliver (1949) has recently written a volume 

called "The moas of New Zealand and Australia." The supposed 

Australian moa, "Dinornis" queenslandiae DeVis, is based on a 

femur head from "Post Tertiary" deposits. Two other giant 

extinct ratites, Dromornis and Genyornis, are known from the 

Pleistocene of Australia. Both are assigned to the Dromaeidae. 

Careful comparison of the published figures of the femur of 

"Dinornis" queenslandiae, made by McDowell at the suggestion 

of the authors, led him to the conclusion that the development of 

the trochanter is so different that it seems impossible that queenslandiae 

belongs in the Dinornithidae. There is no reason to 

suppose it could not represent a distinct ratite type allied to the 

emus rather than to the moas. According to McDowell (verbal 

communication) the supposed records of kiwis from Australia 

(Metapteryx) are also erroneous. 

The presence of relatives of Aepyornis in fossil remains from 

Africa is based on even less satisfactory fragments and should not 

be accepted without much more evidence. We doubt if this will 

ever be forthcoming. 

It is a curious fact that the male assumes all the duties of incubation 

in all the living ratites except sometimes in the ostrich 

but including the tinamous. Probably this is only a remarkable 

coincidence. 

SPHENISCI; TUBINARES (PROCELLARIIFORMES) 

As already noted, the penguins are related to the petrels and

1951 A CLASSIFICATION OF RECENT EIRDS .5 

less closely to the Steganopodes. Simpson (1946) has shown that 

the Miocene penguins were osteologically much like those of today. 

The metatarsals are less fused in the modern forms, an interesting 

example of "reversal of evolution" and "de-specialization." 

LOONS: GAVIAE; GREBES: PODICIPEDES (COLYMBIFORMES) 

The controversy as to whether the name Colymbus Linnaeus, 

1758, applies to a loon or to a grebe is perhaps best resolved, as 

suggested in a paper by Dr. F. Salomonsen presented at the Xth 

International Ornithological Congress, by declaring the name 

indeterminable. The names Gavia will then be used for the loons 

and Podiceps for the typical grebes. 

As already indicated, Stolpe (1935) concluded that there is little 

reason to believe that the loons and grebes are related to the Cretaceous 

Hesperornis (cf. Howard, 1950) or, for that matter, to each 

other. Since, however, the grebes have been thought to be remote 

allies of the petrels, and since McDowell (oral communication) 

thinks that the loons may be a specialized offshoot of petrel stock, 

it is possible that the grebes and loons have some distant or indirect 

relationship. It is permissible, therefore, to continue to keep 

them near each other in a classification. 

STEGANOPODES (PELECANIFORMES) 

Lanham (1947) has assembled anatomical data to show that the 

tropic birds (Phaithontidae) and frigate birds (Fregatidae) share 

a number of apparently primitive characters with the Tubinares. 

These characters are often lacking in the third main group of the 

Steganopodes, which includes the pelicans, cormorants, anhingas, 

and gannets. Phaethon is certainly further removed from Pelecanus 

and allies than is Fregata. 

The resemblances between the tropic birds and the gulls and 

terns have often been pointed out, but until evidence of true 

affinity is brought forward they must be attributed to convergence. 

G. Timmermann (MS) has found certain of the Mallophaga of 

these two groups to be related, but it is possible that this is a result 

of secondary transfer of parasites in birds of similar size and 

habits. The case may be comparable to the occurrence on the skua 

(Catharacta) of an "endemic" species of Mallophaga of a genus 

otherwise restricted to the Tubinares (Hopkins, 1942, p. 100). 

Anhinga is so much like Phalacrocorax that it would seem to


require no more than subfamily status. Stresemann did not give 

it even that. 

ACCIPITRES OR FALCONES 

The diurnal birds of prey are a highly differentiated group, 

thought by some to be related to the Gressores, and more distantly 

to the Steganopodes. Hudson (1948) and others have 

written on the classification of this order in recent years. The 

American vultures (Cathartidae) are very distinct and may not be 

related to the other Falcones. Perhaps they are representatives 

of some ancient American radiation which may even include 

some or all of such families as the Anhimidae, Cracidae, and Tinamidae 

(McDowell, verbal communication). The occurrence of a 

cathartid, Pleseocathartes, in the upper Eocene of France requires 

confirmation, in the opinion of Dr. A. Wetmore who has examined 

the specimens (verbal communication). 

The African secretary bird, Sagittarius, resembles the gruiform 

Cariamidae of South America. Some would transfer the Sagittariidae 

to the Grues, others the Cariamidae to the Accipitres. 

Actually, the resemblance may be parallelism. Still, Sagittarius 

may not belong to the Accipitres. 

Certain similarities in the pterylography and in the plantar 

tendons of the Pandionidae and Cathartidae (Compton, 1938) 

are apparently of no phylogenetic significance (Hudson, 1948). 

GRESSORES (CICONIIFORMES) 

The whale-head or shoe-bill stork, Balaeniceps, has often been 

placed in a monotypic family. Bohm (1930) thought its anatomy 

like that of a true stork, and Dr. James P. Chapin tells us that he 

believes it well placed in the Ciconiidae. It has the bill-rattling 

habit of storks. The hammerhead, Scopus, on the other hand, is 

more distinct and may be left in a separate family. Both genera 

share some characters with the Ardeidae. 

The boat-billed heron, Cochlearius, appears to be a typical 

heron in all except its curious bill. It is even possible to point 

to the night herons as being probably its nearest relatives. We 

think this genus may properly be placed in the Ardeidae, just as 

the spoonbills, Platalea, are placed in the Threskiornithidae. 

The trematodes of the Ciconiidae and Ardeidae are quite different 

(Szidat, 1942), but possibly study of those of some of the 

other families of Gressores will bridge this gap.


PHOENICOPTERI 

Flamingos resemble the Anseres in some ways, though many of 

the characters involved, particularly the bill, are highly adaptive. 

The Mallophaga of the two groups are much alike (Hopkins, 1949), 

while those of the Phoenicopteri and Gressores (with which the 

flamingos are usually placed) are very different. 

The flamingos have, however, many anatomical similarities 

with storks and ibises. Stresemann, after enumerating these 

similarities, stated that the resemblance of the flamingos to the 

waterfowl is superficial. In view of this conflicting evidence it 

seems best to place the flamingos as a separate order between the 

Anseres and Gressores. They may be related to both. 

ANSERES 

The waterfowl are a very distinct group but may be placed between 

the flamingos and gallinaceous birds. The two South 

American families Anhimidae (Anseres) and Cracidae (Galli) 

may be distantly related (Delacour, 1949). Delacour and Mayr 

(1945) wrote on the classification of the Anatidae, which they 

divided into two subfamilies and five tribes. Several genera are 

of doubtful allocation, and one in particular, the magpie-goose, 

Anseranas, deserves to be placed in a sixth trbe (von Boetticher, 

1943). 

GALLI 

The gallinaceous birds are one of the primitive and basic orders. 

It is highly unlikely that they are related to the Tinami. We follow 

Delacour (1951) in considering the grouse and guineafowls 

as only subfamilies of the Phasianidae. 

Stresemann placed the hoatzin, Opisthocomus, in a separate 

order, which, however, he considered to be "einen sehr nahen 

Verwandten der Galli." Some of the peculiarities of this bird, 

such as the large crop and the well-developed wing claws of the 

chick, are specializations for its peculiar diet and habitat and may 

not be primitive. Pycraft thought Opisthocomus to have significant 

resemblances to the genus Centropus (Cuculidae) and to the 

turacos (Musophagidae), as well as to the Galli. Stresemann 

considered the similarity to cuckoos and turacos as superficial. 

For the time being, it seems best to retain the Opisthocomidae 

in the Galli as a suborder. In the opinion of McDowell the hoatzin 

has a large number of important resemblances to the Cracidae 

and Anhimidae.


CUCULI 

There is a difference of opinion, first as to whether or not the 

turacos (Musophagidae) should be associated with the Galli, and 

second whether or not the cuckoos (Cuculidae) are related to the 

turacos. The Mallophaga of the turacos are said to be strongly 

indicative of relationship to the Galli, though Hopkins (1949) 

thinks this might be the result of accidental transfer in a dust 

bath. Pycraft and Furbringer found morphological resemblances 

between turacos and the Galli, though Stresemann and others 

considered these superficial. We think, however, it is best to 

place the turacos tentatively near the Galli. 

The turacos and cuckoos agree in most features of basic anatomy. 

Moreover, the cuckoos of the genus Coua of Madagafcar 

often resemble turacos in body form, presence of bare areas on 

face, coloration including even purplish or reddish tinge on tail, 

and general configuration of bill and nostrils. While they lack 

the full crest of the turacos, there is an incipient one. Turacos 

always perch with two toes back and two forward, though in 

death this functional zygodactyly is not always indicated by the 

position of the toes. Moreau (1938) has emphasized developmental 

differences between turacos and cuckoos, but the tendency 

towards peculiar nesting habits in the latter lessens the significance 

of this. It is entirely possible that the Musophagidae are somewhat 

primitive relatives of the Cuculidae, so we tentatively follow 

convention in associating the two families in the same order. 

GRUES 

This order has no obvious ties with the orders preceding it, 

though various links with the Falcones, Galli, or even the Gressores 

have been advanced at one time or another. The large number of 

relict families of a genus or two each in the Grues marks it as a 

declining and ancient order, as does its fossil history. The phorlioracids 

of South America and possibly the Eocene Diatryma are 

among the extinct relatives of the Grues. 

LARO-LIMICOLAE (CHARADRIIFORMES) 

This diversified order may be connected with the Grues through 

one or all of the Burhinidae, Jacanidae, and Thinocoridae. 

Several of the shore bird families currently recognized seem to 

require no more than subfamily status (cf. Stresemann).

.1951 A CLASSIFICATION OF RECENT BIRDS 9 

COLUMBAE; PSITTACI 

The Columbae may be tentatively placed near the Laro-Limicolae, 

but certain resemblances between pigeons and game birds 

may eventually prove to be of significance. It is unlikely that 

the sand grouse (Pteroclidae) are grouse-like except in superficial 

adaptations. 

The Psittaci are a strongly differentiated group. Resemblance 

to the Accipitres is probably mere convergence, and relationship 

to the Cuculi, championed by Gadow, must be rather distant at 

best. McDowell has found similarities between the humeri of 

parrots and those of pigeons. 

CAPRIMULGI; STRIGES 

Hudson (1937) found a. great difference between the thigh 

muscles of owls and those of Caprimulgidae, but perhaps examination 

of other families, such as the Aegothelidae, would bridge the 

gap. Certainly there are strong reasons to believe the two orders 

to be related, but the resemblance of goatsuckers to swifts is 

evidently superficial. 

CORACIAE 

The Madagascar cuckoo roller, Leptosomus, and the ground 

rollers have been placed in the same family by Sclater (1924- 

1930) and by Wetmore. Yet the ground rollers appear to be 

much closer to the true rollers than to Leptosomus, though some 

may prefer to recognize three families. 

MACROCHIRES (APODIFORMES); COLII 

Whether the swifts and hummingbirds are actually related 

to each other or not is an open question, but Furbringer found 

much evidence that they are. He considered both to be rather 

closely allied to the Passeres. Since, however, the Pici seem to be 

even closer to the Passeres, the sequence Macrochires, Pici, Passeres 

is suggested. The very isolated Colii are closest to the 

Macrochires, according to Furbringer, although there is some 

indication of relationship with the Coraciae, particularly the 

Alcedinidae. 

PERCHING BIRDS: PASSERES 

The subdivision of the Passeres on the basis of the muscles of 

the syrinx was made by Johannes Muller as early as 1847. About


1880 Garrod and Forbes published several papers establishing the 

position of such families as the broadbills and philepittas. These 

and other important references on the Order Passeriformes are 

given by Ridgway (1901, pp. 2-23; 1907, pp. 328-332) and by 

Stresemann (1927-1934, pp. 843-850). The following brief summary 

mentions only the more important or controversial points. 

SUBOSCINES 

The broadbills differ from other Passeres and agree with some 

non-Passeres by having a vinculum or band connecting the deep 

muscles of the toes. They have 15 cervical vertebrae as compared 

to 14 in most other Passeres, as well as other distinctions. 

It thus seems justifiable to follow those authorities who place the 

Eurylaimidae in a separate suborder. Their resemblances to the 

Pittidae or even the Cotingidae have led some to give them lesser 

rank. 

The remaining Passeres may be divided into two groups, as 

follows: 

A. Mesomyodes or Clamatores: Those in which the intrinsic 

muscles (if any) of the syrinx are attached to one of the ends or to 

the middle of the bronchial half rings (the Eurylaimidae agree with 

this group). 

B. Acromyodes: Those in which these muscles are attached to 

both ends of the bronchial half rings. 

Group A, Mesomyodes or Clamatores, is further divisible into 

two main groups: (1) those in which the syrinx is tracheobronchial 

(Haploophonae), and (2) those in which it is entirely 

tracheal (Tracheophonae). Group 1 contains both Old World 

and New World families. The former are the Pittidae (Asia, 

Australo-Papua, and Africa), Philepittidae (Madagascar), and 

Xenicidael (New Zealand). Recent study has shown that the 

genus Neodrepanis of Madagascar is a philepittid (Amadon, in 

press). These three families, through not very closely related, 

are very likely more nearly allied to one another than to the 

Neotropical members of this group. 

The remaining families of the "Haploophonae" are exclusively 

or predominantly (Tyrannidae) Neotropical, viz., Tyrannidae (in 

which we include Oxyruncus as a subfamily), Pipridae, Cotingidae, 

1 Since the name Xenicidae has prior usage, as for example in the "Catalogue of 

birds" of the British Museum, it is unnecessary to replace it by the more cumbersome 

Acanthisittidae merely because the latter is based on an older generic name.


and Phytotomidae. The Pipridae and Cotingidae differ from 

other passerines in that the femoral, not the ischiatic, artery is 

the principal one of the thigh. This is probably a functional 

character reflecting the relative development of the thigh muscles. 

Hence we do not think it necessary to make a separate family for 

the cock-of-the-rock, Rup'icola, because it has the ischiatic artery 

predominant. This aberrancy may be correlated with its terrestrial 

dances. 

Garrod united the manakins and cotingas in a single family. 

Further study may show that this procedure, with subfamily rank 

for the two groups, is justified. Of the genera currently assigned 

to the Pipridae, Schiffornis appears somewhat like a cotinga. 

Calyptura of the Cotingidae has been placed by some authors in 

the Pipridae. Some of the genera of both of these families are 

very much like some genera of the Tyrannidae. This is true of 

Tyranneutes and Sapayoa of the Pipridae. Xenopsaris was placed 

in the Cotingidae by Ridgway, in the Tyrannidae by Hellmayr. 

The Cotingidae recall in some ways the Eurylaimidae, even to 

the construction of large, bag-like nests by the broadbills and by 

some cotingas. Pycraft was especially impressed by these similarities, 

and he thought the two groups might some day be reduced 

to subfamilies That the relationship is this close seems more than 

doubtful, but further study is needed. The peculiar genus Phytotomca 

(plant-cutters) somewhat resembles the cotingas, though the 

ischiatic is the principal artery of the thigh. It must be retained 

as a monotypic family pending further study. 

The second division of group A is peculiar in that the syrinx is 

entirely tracheal. There are four families of "Tracheophonae," 

all Neotropical, the Rhinocryptidae, Conopophagidae, Formicariidae, 

and Dendrocolaptidae (including "Furnariidae"). 

The usual subdivision of the Tracheophonae into these four 

families is not particularly satisfactory.. We follow the earlier 

authors who left the ovenbirds (Furnarius and allies) with the 

closely related woodhewers (Dendrocolaptes and allies), but the 

two groups may be retained as separate subfamilies. This family, 

Dendrocolaptidae, differs from the remaining tracheophones by 

having two rather than one pair of tracheo-bronchial muscles. 

The group with one pair of tracheo-bronchial muscles is usually 

divided into a large family, the antbirds (Formicariidae), supposedly 

characterized by a two-notched metasternum, and two 

smaller families (Rhinocryptidae, Conopophagidae) in which the

12 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 1496-i 

metasternum is four-notched. Dr. J. T. Zimmer has called to our 

attention that the late Waldron Miller (unpublished) found that 

the genus Melanopareia, comprising otherwise typical formicarians, 

has a four-notched sternum. It is possible that further 

study will show that the Rhinocryptidae cannot be separated 

satisfactorily from the Formicariidae. The former may prove to: 

be a polyphyletic group composed of specialized ant birds. The 

genus Conopophaga lacks intrinsic syrinx muscles altogether and 

has an exaspidean tarsal envelope. Whether these characters are 

constant enough to warrant full family status for this genus or 

not must remain with the future. 

The Xenicidae of New Zealand resemble some of the Tracheophonae, 

particularly the genus Conopophaga. Both are longlegged, 

short-tailed denizens of the undergrowth, and both 

happen to have a white supraocular stripe. We do not think the 

parallelism is any more indicative of close relationship than, for 

example, that between such formicariids as Graliaria and such 

thrushes as Amalocichla or Zeledonia. The similarity of the 

Australian scrub bird, Atrichornis, to some of the Rhinocryptidae, 

e.g., Liosceles or Scytalopus, is, to our minds, equally a matter of 

adaptation to similar habitats. 

In regard to group B above (those passeres in which the syrinx 

muscles are attached to both ends of the bronchial half rings), 

it contains, in addition to the true song birds, two primitive 

Australian families, the Atrichornithidae and Menuridae. Each 

of the latter contains but a single genus. Although very dissimilar 

in appearance, they share a number of anatomical peculiarities 

and are probably nearer to each other than either is to 

any other group. Although the attachment of the syrinx muscles 

in these two Australian families is similar to that of the Oscines, 

only two or three pairs of such muscles are present, as compared to 

five to seven pairs in the Oscines proper. 

Probably further study of some of the larger of the groups mentioned 

above, e.g., the tyrant flycatchers, will reveal that they 

should be divided into subfamilies or tribes equivalent to those 

used below for some of the families of song birds. 

The various suboscine perching birds give every appearance of 

being in the process of replacement by the Oscines. Many of the 

families of the former group have a relict distribution in Madagascar, 

New Zealand, Australia, or South America. The last 

continent was of course isolated for a long time. It has few well-

1951 A CLASSIFICATION OF RECENT BIRDS 13' 

differentiated families of indigenous song birds, although the subfamilies 

of the tanager-pyrrhuloxine finch assemblage are richly 

developed. An adaptive radiation of the wrens, mimids, and 

other song birds of South America might reduce the Suboscines of 

that continent to the subordinate position they occupy in the Old 

World. 

OSCINES OR TRUE SONG BIRDS 

Of the approximately 8600 species of living birds, 5100 belong to 

the Passeres, and about 4000, to the Suborder Oscines. The difficulty 

in finding good anatomical characters that besets the avian 

taxonomist at every level is particularly acute in this suborder. 

As' a group song birds are the most advanced, successful, and apparently 

latest to evolve of the entire Class Aves. They have developed 

an infinite variety of types, and many annectant aand in-, 

termediate forms are still in existence. The "phylogenetic tree" 

of -the group, if it could be drawn accurately, would probably 

resemble a great flat-topped "umbrella" tree. 

Added to the above difficulties is a large amount of parallelism, 

often in different continents. For example, the American orioles 

and' blackbirds (Icteridae) are the ecological homologues of the 

Old World starlings (Sturnidae). So slight are the anatomical 

distinctions in this suborder that these two groups were once' 

placed in the same family by competent anatomists, though they 

are probably quite unrelated. 

The object of the following discussion of the families of Oscines 

is not to present entirely novel findings. Rather it is to summarize 

the results of investigations of numerous workers and particularly 

the results of field workers who have often produced better clues 

to relationship than the anatomists. Furthermore, it is intended 

to expose our abysmal ignorance of the relationships of most songbird 

families. In spite of their basic uniformity, there are certain 

minor anatomical differences as pointed out by Stonor (1937) and 

Beecher (MS). It would seem high time to investigate previously 

unexplored anatomical systems (as Beecher has for the jawmuscles) 

in an attempt to shed new light on oscinine classification. 

The shape of the bill has been used with too much confidence 

in the past as a reliable basis for classification. Actually the bill 

is the most plastic of all the organs of a bird, and evidence is 

mounting daily that shrike-like bills, warbler-like bills, finch-like 

bills, and flycatcher-like bills have been acquired repeatedly and


polyphyletically by various unrelated groups of Oscines. The investigation 

of the true relationship of these groups will be a rewarding 

task. 

Habits are often a better clue to relationships than structure. 

Nest-building habits, for instance, are diagnostic for the subfamilies 

of Paridae, and similarity in nests was a clue to Mayr and 

Bond (1943) in allying Ptyonoprogne with Hirundo rather than 

with Riparia. 

Only two or three oscinine families are reasonably well defined. 

The larks (Alaudidae) differ from the others by having the back of 

the tarsus rounded and broken up into plates. They also lack the 

bony pessulus at the junction of the bronchi in the syrinx. The 

Hirundinidae have the bronchial rings more or less complete; in 

other Oscines they are "half rings," with a membrane across the 

inner face. But, from here on, consistent family characters are extremely 

hard to find. 

These difficulties have led some anatomists to divide the Oscines 

into only three or four families. This serves to keep passerine 

families equivalent to those of other orders, but does not help in 

classifying the many obviously monophyletic groups of song birds 

that must be designated somehow, whether we call them families, 

subfamilies, tribes, or what not. Certain groups clearly connected 

by linking forms may be reduced to the level of subfamilies as has 

been done for the thrush-babbler-flycatcher-warbler assemblage. 

This will, however, inevitably lead to the use of "tribes" or other 

intermediate categories, as in Delacour's (1946) revision of the 

Timaliinae. For this reason we have retained, for the time being, 

family status for a number of groups which it may prove expedient 

to reduce to subfamilies later. 

The arrangement of the passerine families in a linear sequence 

is a task involving many compromises. At best, one can seek 

only to keep related families together. The classification of 

Stejneger, followed in considerable measure by that of Wetmore, 

places much weight on the relative reduction of the tenth (outer) 

primary. This trend towards specialization is of some importance, 

especially since all, or almost all, of the Suboscines have a long 

tenth primary, longer than in any oscinine. On the other hand, 

reduction of the tenth primary is certainly subject to reversal and 

is a highly adaptive, plastic, and polyphyletic character. For 

example, the genus Urocynchramus of the fringilline finches has a 

relatively long tenth primary, though all other finches lack one.


Other families in which the tenth primary may be present or absent 

from genus to genus are the Bombycillidae (sensu lato), Dicaeidae, 

and Sturnidae. The seemingly primitive Alaudidae have 

the tenth primary quite reduced or even vestigial in a few genera. 

Some highly specialized families, such as the Nectariniidae, have 

a moderately developed tenth primary. It certainly does not follow 

that the nine-primaried families are necessarily the "highest" 

song birds. Other characters denoting specialization, such as a 

booted condition of the tarsus, are also of variable significance. 

A number of authorities, including W. K. Parker, Macgillivray, 

Sharpe, and Alfred Newton (1893-1896, pp. 117-120), thought 

that the Corvidae are, all in all, the most advanced and "highest" 

type of bird. Studies of the avian brain by Portmann (1947) 

have tended to show that Corvus ranks above other birds in brain 

development. As Dr. J. P. Chapin has pointed out to us, however, 

were similar attention given to certain icterids, sturnids, 

ploceids, and perhaps others, they might prove just as "advanced." 

Nevertheless, we have thought it best to follow the school that 

would terminate the oscinine series with the Corvidae and allied 

families. It is the sequence adopted in Sharpe's "Handlist" 

and in many ornithological reference works throughout the world. 

It will be all too evident from this discussion that no linear 

sequence for the Oscines can be adequate and that various lines of 

specialization must often be followed to their conclusion and 

then a fresh start be made. 

Unlike the Suboscines, which have their richest present representation 

in South America, the Oscines have flourished and differentiated 

chiefly in the Old World tropics and Australia. In these 

areas literally dozens of genera present such a problem that they 

have been shifted from family to family or assigned to "scrap 

baskets" such as the Prionopidae, Timaliidae, etc. We hope that 

the following discussion of these difficult groups, often with a 

listing of the genera involved, will prove useful. 

ALAUDIDAE 

The larks are perhaps best left at the beginning of the oscinine 

series because of the reticulate posterior surface of the tarsus and 

the absence of an ossified pessulus in the syrinx. 

HIRUNDINIDAE 

The swallows are specialized, but since they are well dif-


ferentiated from all other Oscines they may be left near the 

beginning of the sequence, for the time being at least, pending 

definite proof of affinity to other families. The African flycatcher, 

Artnnyias, is very swallow-like and shows how swallows may 

have evolved from perching insect catchers. This is probably not 

an indication of true relationship. For a discussion of the genera 

of swallows, see Mayr and Bond (1943). 

The curious African river-martin, Pseudochelidon, is very doubtfully 

a member of the swallow family, though Lowe (1938) placed 

it there. On the other hand, there is still less reason to place it in 

the Artamidae, which have completely different nesting habits, 

possess powder downs lacking in Pseudochelidon, and are absent 

from the Ethiopian region. We have examined the syrinx of 

Pseudochelidon from plentiful material supplied by Dr. James P. 

Chapin. The bronchial rings are all half rings, with a large internal 

membrane running the length of the bronchial tubes. 

Likewise, the bronchidesmus connecting the bronchii seems to be 

present, as in most song birds, whereas in swallows the bronchial 

rings tend to be complete and the bronchidesmus absent, though 

the only hirundinids available to us were so poorly preserved as to 

make it somewhat difficult to confirm these details. 

We leave Pseudochelidon as a subfamily of the Hirundinidae, 

but probably it belongs in a separate family, possibly near the 

Prionopidae, to the members of which the bill and texture of the 

plumage bear some resemblances. 

BULBULS AND ALLIES 

CAMPEPHAGIDAE 

Of the vast group of Old World insect eaters the cuckoo-shrikes 

are perhaps among the more primitive. In most of them the 

shafts of the dense feathers-of the back are stiffened and enlarged, 

but this is absent or but weakly indicated in the minivets, Pericrocotus, 

and in the genus Chlamydochera of Borneo. The recent 

transfer of the genera Tephrodornis and Hemipus to the Campephagidae 

by Delacour and others is thus not necessarily invalidated 

by the absence of such modified shafts in these genera. 

In habits and nidification these two genera resemble cuckooshrikes, 

but it is quite possible that they are only "shrike-billed 

flycatchers."


IRENIDAE (AEGITHINIDAE) 

The leafbirds were formerly associated with the Pyenonotidae 

but seem not very close. They may, however, be left in the 

general vicinity of the cuckoo-shrikes and bulbuls. Since Oberholser 

(1917b) proposed a family for the genus Irena, this family 

should be called Irenidae, not Aegithinidae. The genera of this 

family are A ethorhynchus, Aegithina, Chloropsis, and Irena. 

PYCNONOTIDAE 

Bulbuls are among-the more primitive appearing of Old World 

song birds. They may be related to the Campephagidae, but a 

few, such as Nicator, resemble some of the bush shrikes (Laniidae: 

Malaconotinae), though perhaps only superficially. Delacour 

(1943) has recently revised the family. We would leave the 

African genus Neolestes in the Pycnonotidae (Chapin, 1921). 

A few other aberrant genera sometimes associated with the 

bulbuls are best removed. Hypergerus of west Africa is more apt 

to be a giant sylviid. Apalopteron of the Bonin Islands differs 

markedly from bulbuls, particularly by reason of its very long 

legs. It may well be an aberrant, insular sylviid or timaliid. 

We have tentatively placed it in the Timaliinae, near Siva. 

The peculiar Tylas eduardi of Madagascar may, in the opinion of 

Chapin, be a member of the Oriolidae. Oberholser (1917a) set 

up a separate family for this genus, but this seems scarcely advisable 

pending further knowledge of its anatomy. Other 

Madagascan genera of difficult assignment are dealt with by Delacour 

in his revisions of the bush warblers (1942), bulbuls (1943), 

and babblers (1946). The genus Malia of Celebes is hard to place. 

It may, as Delacour has suggested, be a bulbul adapted for terrestrial 

life. 

PRIMITIVE INSECT EATERS 

MUSCICAPIDAE 

The group embraced by the above descriptive term has sometimes 

been called the "Old World insect eaters," but it is impossible 

to separate the New World wrens and thrashers from it, while 

even the predominantly Old World warblers and babblers have 

a few New World representatives, and the thrushes are well represented 

there. The phrase "insect eaters" is not, of course, to be 

taken too literally, since many of the thrushes, in particular, feed 

to a considerable extent on earthworms, snails, and fruit.


The satisfactory association of many components of this group 

into families is virtually impossible. This was recognized by 

Hartert and many later authorities who have listed the Old World 

flycatchers and warblers, as well as the babblers and thrushes, as 

subfamilies of the Muscicapidae. The Mimidae and Troglodytidae 

seem to deserve similar treatment, some of the West Indian genera, 

in particular, being very thrush-like, while others seem intermediate 

between wrens and mockers. 

The Turdinae include a number of aberrant genera that probably 

deserve the status of separate tribes or may even be wrongly 

placed with this subfamily. By no means all of the tropical 

thrushes have a "booted" tarsus. Among these difficult genera 

are Henicurus and Cochoa in the Old World and Zeledonia in the 

New World. The last-named genus was thought by Sharpe and 

by Pycraft (1905) to be an aberrant thrush, distantly related to 

such genera as Catharus. Erythropygia, sometimes placed with the 

Sylviinae, seems correctly assigned to the Turdinae (Chapin). 

Our listing of tribes is only tentative. 

The babblers or Timaliinae have long been a "scrap basket" 

for genera that did not fit well into the Turdinae or Sylviinae. 

Delacour's (1946) revision brought a semblance of order into this 

group, but even so he was obliged to set aside a section for "aberrant 

genera." To the five tribes that he set up, a sixth, the 

Picathartini, including only the west African genus Picathartes, 

is to be added (Delacour and Amadon, in press). This genus has 

usually been placed in the Corvidae, where it surely does not belong. 

We agree with Delacour in placing the wren-tit, Chamaea, of 

California in the tribe Chaemaeini of the Timaliinae. This bird 

appears to be very closely allied to the genus Moupinia of China. 

A number of genera of the Australo-Papuan region (Eupetes, 

Cindosoma, Orthonyx, Psophodes, Ifrita, Androphobus, and Melampitta) 

do not fit well in the Timaliinae but may for the time 

being be left as a tribe, the Cinclosomatini, of that subfamily. 

Some may consider them as nearer to the Turdinae. These seven 

genera probably do not comprise a homogeneous group; Psophodes, 

as noted elsewhere, may belong to the Pachycephalini. 

Cinclorhamphus, sometimes associated with this group, we tentatively 

place in the Malurinae. 

The subfamily Sylviinae contains a large number of genera and 

species difficult to divide satisfactorily into major subgroups


(with the exception of the American gnatcatchers and allies which 

may be considered a tribe). A few genera, such as Megalurulus 

of New Caledonia, might be placed in either the Sylviinae or 

Timaliinae. 

Another most peculiar "warbler" is Lamprolia victoria of Fiji; 

further study may show that it has nothing to do with this family 

(Mayr, 1945, p. 137). 

Regulus agrees so well with some species of Phylloscopus as 

to leave little room for doubt that it is a sylviid adapted to boreal 

coniferous forests. More doubt exists as regards the central 

Asiatic Lophobasileus and Leptopoceile. These little birds suggest 

Regulus, but might be related to titmice, notably Aegithalos. 

We follow custom in leaving them near Regulus and Phylloscopus. 

Their mossy ground nest favors this assignment. 

In Australia, New Guinea, Polynesia, and New Zealand there 

is a group of some 85 species of warblers which appears to be better 

differentiated than either the kinglets (Regulus) or the gnatcatchers 

(Polioptila and allies) and which deserves subfamily 

rank under the above name. It includes the birds grouped in the 

Acanthizidae in the 1926 "Checklist of Australian birds" of the 

Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union and comprise the following 

genera: 

Malurus and its closest allies: Clytomyias (New Guinea only), 

Chenorhamphus (New Guinea only), Todopsis (New Guinea only), 

Malurus, and Stipiturus. The following are less closely allied to 

Malurus: Dasyornis, Amytornis, Aphelocephala, Ephthianura 

(including A shbyia), Smicrornis, Acanthiza, Pyrrholaema, Finschia 

(New Zealand only), Mohoua (New Zealand only), Pycnoptilus, 

Calamanthus, Eremiornis, Hylacola, Chthonicola, Gerygone, Hapolorhynchus 

(New Zealand only), Sericornis, Vitia, Origmella, and 

Crateroscelis. Cinclorhamphus also may belong here. 

The Muscicapinae are in need of a generic revision, but we have 

recognized as tribes the well-defined fantails of the genus Rhipidura 

(see Oliver, 1945, p. 143) and also the monarch-paradise flycatcher 

group (Monarcha, Hypothymis, Terpsiphone, and allies). 

Of the Muscicapini proper, some of the African genera, such 

as Fraseria, have a great resemblance to thrushes. Stizorhina, 

formerly placed with the flycatchers, is considered by Chapin to 

be a thrush, very close to Neocossyphus. 

The shrike-billed flycatchers (Pachycephalini) of the Australian 

region are often quite different from the average flycatchers in


appearance and manner of feeding but intergrade completely with 

them through such genera as Pachyrephalopsis and Heteromyias. 

Concerning the genera of the tribe Pachycephalini, Coracornis 

and Hylocitrea of Celebes and Rhagalogus of New Guinea are not 

far from Pachycephala proper. Eulacestoma of New Guinea, set 

apart by its large wattles, is intermediate in specialization of the 

bill between Pachycephala and Falcunculus. The peculiar 

Pachycare, which may not be a flycatcher at all, is best left near 

Falcunculus. 

Another line leads to rather large, coarse-billed but otherwise 

unspecialized forms, from Pachycephala through Oreoica and 

Colluricincla (including Myiolestes) to Pitohui. Turnagra, the 

so-called New Zealand thrush, probably belongs here rather 

than in the Turdinae. Its skull is very different from that of 

Turdus (Oliver, 1945, p. 148). The Australian genus Psophodes, 

considered by Delacour to be an aberrant babbler, may belong 

near Oreoica in the Pachycephalini. 

CINCLINAE 

The dippers agree with the Turdinae in having a booted tarsus 

and (to some extent) in the mottled immature plumage of some 

of the Old World dippers, characters emphasized by Stejneger 

(1905). Other writers have been more impressed by their resemblance 

to wrens (Troglodytinae). The classification depends 

somewhat on the decision as to whether Cinclus is of New or Old 

World origin, but the distributional evidence is again somewhat 

equivocal. In either case, we do not feel that the characters of 

Cinclus, consisting chiefly of adaptations for its aquatic accomplishments, 

merit more than subfamily rank. 

PRUNELLIDAE 

The hedge sparrows resemble buntings (Emberizinae) in appearance 

and posture and also by living in part upon seeds and by 

having a true crop. On the other hand, the bill is more or less 

thrush-like, and the tenth primary is not vestigial as in the buntings. 

The Heinroths (1924-1926, p. 34) suggest that Prunella may be 

a rather primitive genus related both to thrushes and finches. 

Since the Emberizinae are presumably of American origin and


Prunella is, at least at present, Palearctic, it is possible that the 

resemblance of the hedge sparrows to the buntings is parallelism. 

MOTACILLIDAE 

No one believes any longer that the pipits or "tit-larks" are related 

to the true larks, yet they are left in that vicinity in most 

classifications. The completely nine-primaried wing is correlated 

with their rapid sweeping flight and is merely paralleled by the 

tendency towards loss of the tenth primary in the Alaudidae. 

Probably the pipits are modified descendants of some group of 

turdids or sylviids, and they are best placed following this group of 

families. 

SHRIKES AND ALLIES 

This group appears possibly to represent somewhat specialized 

offshoots of the preceding large group of insect eaters. In the 

pachycephaline flycatchers of the Australian region, the intermediate 

steps leading from the Muscicapinae are unmistakable. 

The shrikes and their allies may have evolved similarly, but the 

intermediates are absent or can no longer be determined with 

confidence. 

LANIIDAE 

The Laniidae of early authors included distantly related genera 

that had only one feature in common, a hooked, Lanius-like bill. 

This functional adaptation has apparently arisen independently 

many times in birds with similar feeding habits. Various genera 

assigned to the Laniidae at one time or another have since been 

placed with the Pachycephalinae, Campephagidae (Tephrodornis, 

Hemipus), Vireonidae, Cracticidae, Vangidae, and Prionopidae. 

The African bush shrikes (subfamily Malaconotinae) do not 

seem to be true shrikes either, but may be left in the Laniidae 

until more is known of their affinities. Of the 10 genera listed 

by Sclater (1924-1930, pp.- 615-638) we would recognize only the 

following six, synonymizing those placed in parentheses: Malaconotus 

(Chiorophoneus, Telophorus), Rhodophoneus, Tchagra 

(Antichromus), Laniarius, Dryoscopus (Chaunonotus), Lanioturdus. 

As suggesting the possible relationships of this subfamily, one 

may note a similarity of Malaconotus to certain bulbuls (Nicator). 

Lanioturdus (which may not be a bush shrike itself) along with 

Nilaus (formerly considered a bush shrike but assigned by Mayr


[19431 to the Muscicapinae) suggests that the Malaconotinae in 

Africa may be allied to the Muscicapinae, notably to such Ethiopian 

genera as Batis and Platysteira, in somewhat the same way as 

are the Pachycephalinae in the Australian region. 

In the Laniinae proper we leave only Lanius and the long-tailed 

African shrikes, Urolestes and Corvinella. 

PRIONOPIDAE 

The prionopids proper are reduced to three African genera 

(Prionops, Sigmodus, and Eurocephalus) after the removal of 

various unrelated genera (Mayr, 1943). There is a certain resemblance 

between the Prionopidae and some genera of African 

flycatchers and bush shrikes (Malaconotinae). It is therefore 

probable that this family should be associated with the primitive 

insect eaters and with the Laniidae. 

On geographical premises it seems unlikely that the peculiar 

Pityriasis gymnocephala of Borneo (one of the strangest members 

of all the Oscines) is related to the Prionopidae. It was for this 

reason that Mayr (op. cit.) suggested that it be removed from that 

family. This bird does not seem to fit well anywhere else, however, 

and agrees with Prionops, and more particularly with Sigmodus 

scopifrons, in proportions, wing pattern, and other details. 

Moreover, one sees in these African Prionopidae a tendency towards 

specialization of the head feathers and presence of wattles 

that might be the forerunner of the bristle-like head feathers that 

suggested the name "Pityriasis" for the Borneo genus. Yet T. H. 

Harrisson (in litt.) is impressed by its "mynah-like" behavior. 

VANGIDAE 

The vangas are of somewhat uncertain affinities but may be 

related to the other shrike-like birds, particularly the Prionopidae. 

The Vangidae have become so diverse in the isolation provided by 

Madagascar that it is difficult to decide what the ancestor of the 

group was like. 

The Australian "magpies" (Cracticidae) resemble shrikes and, 

even more, Pityriasis in the shape of the bill, but we think they 

are more likely to be related to the Australian corvid-like families, 

including the Grallinidae, Paradisaeidae, etc., and place them 

there.


ARTAMIDAE 

The family contains but the one genus, Artamus (unless the 

African Pseudochelidon eventually is shown to belong here). The 

relationships of Artamus are doubtful, but there is a certain resemblance 

to some of the Vangidae and even to the Bombycillidae. 

It may be tentatively left in the vicinity of these families. 

BOMBYCILLIDAE 

The reasons for treating the American silky flycatchers, the 

West Indian palm chat, Dulus, and the Persian genus Hypocolius 

as subfamilies of the Bombycillidae have been given by Arvey 

(1949) and Delacour and Amadon (1949). The broader question 

of the relationships of the family are much more difficult. As 

pointed out to us by Chapin, Hypocolius shares with Eurocephalus, 

and to a lesser extent with Prionops, the peculiar feature of having 

the normally unbroken plates comprising the rear half of the 

oscinine tarsus divided weakly into a number of shields or scutes. 

This might mean that the resemblance of Hypocolius to other 

bombycillids is superficial. Another possibility is that the 

Bombycillidae belong in the general vicinity of the Prionopidae 

and related families. We here tentatively follow the latter alternative. 

CREEPERS, NUTHATCHES, AND TITMICE 

These birds are all primarily of Old World origin and may have 

evolved from generalized insect eaters. 

CERTHIIDAE 

The genus Certhia has had a long history of tree creeping, as 

shown by the spiny tail and specialized tail molt wherein the two 

central feathers are retained until all the others are replaced, thus 

giving continuous support. This adaptation occurs elsewhere 

only in the Picidae. All the other "creepers" sometimes placed 

in the Certhiidae are more like nuthatches, but we leave the 

Certhiidae near the Sittidae, should there be any relationship. 

SITTIDAE 

This family, as we conceive it, is admittedly something of a 

"scrap basket." We tentatively suggest the following subfamilies: 

SALPORNINAE: Salpornis, Rhabdornis, Climacteris, and Tichodroma. 

The members of these genera all have a rather long, de-


curved bill. Rhabdornis (Philippines) and Climacteris (Australia) 

appear to be related, but whether or not they are allied to Salpornis 

(India, Africa) is a moot question. The wall creeper 

(Tichodroma) resembles in some ways the nuthatches (Sitta) and 

may be a specialized derivative of some such bird as the rock 

nuthatch (Sitta tephronota). The Heinroths (1924-1926) point 

out a number of differences between the two genera, and the true 

position of Tichodroma remains doubtful. 

SITTINAE: Sitta, Neositta, and Daphoenositta. The Australo- 

Papuan tree-runners (Neositta, Daphoenositta) resemble in many 

ways some of the nuthatches such as Sittafrontalis. This may be 

misleading, since the open nests of the various species of Neositta 

are not at all like those of the members of Sitta. Perhaps Neositta 

is related to Climacteris. 

HYPOSITTINAE: The coral-billed "nuthatch" of Madagascar is 

another puzzling bird. It suggests some of the nuthatches, but 

the proportions are those of the true creepers (Certhia), which it 

resembles in habits. The tail feathers are unmodified. Rand 

(1936a, 1936b) has written on the habits and position of Hypositta, 

Neositta, and Daphoenositta. 

PARIDAE 

The tits appear to be a polyphyletic group of genera placed together 

on the basis of superficial resemblance due to arboreal 

habits and a-fine, more or less conical bill. Three groups can be 

distinguished: 

1. The true titmice. This consists of the genus Parus and 

the closely related Melanochlora (sultan tits). Sylviparus is a 

dubious member of this group. 

There is a remarkable resemblance between some of the jays, 

particularly the boreal Perisoreus, and the genus Parus. This 

similarity does not extend to the skull or the internal anatomy, 

and Ridgway (1904, pp. 253-254) stated that even the external 

features "when closely examined, show many points of difference." 

It is probable, therefore, that the like manner in which jays, 

titmice, and even nuthatches hold nuts or seeds in their feet while 

opening them or store them away in crevices for future use has no 

great phylogenetic significance. Kramer (1930) has published 

data on the occurrence of such habits in various groups of birds. 

A parallel case is the habit of the true shrikes (Lanius) and of 

the unrelated Australian "shrikes" (Cracticus) of impaling and 

dismembering small birds and rodents.


2. Remiz-Auriparus group. These birds may be distantly related 

to the Dicaeidae (flowerpeckers). They are characterized 

by the peculiarly shaped bill and the bag-like nest they construct. 

Cephalopyrus may belong to this group, though it is a hole nester. 

3. Aegithalos-Psaltriparus-Psaltria. In their complete juvenal 

molt (Stresemann, 1923), cranial characters, and nest structure 

(Lucas, 1890), the long-tailed tits and bush tits differ radically 

from the Paridae. The young hatch naked, while young of the 

true titmice are partly downy. They share several of these 

characters with Panurus and Paradoxornis and are perhaps nothing 

but an offshoot of the Timaliinae. The fact that the parrotbills 

make a cup-like nest, while the nest of the present group is 

bag-like, is not, however, favorable to this suggestion. 

It is now universally agreed that Panurus is a close relative of 

Paradoxornis. Delacour (1946) places it, together with Chamaea, 

in the tribe Chamaeini of the Timaliinae, along with the other 

"parrot-bills." 

OLD WORLD NECTAR EATERS 

DICAEIDAE 

The primitive fruit-eating dicaeid genus Melanocharis of New 

Guinea has a great resemblance to certain genera of Meliphagidae 

(Timeliopsis, Oedistoma). Since the latter have a highly specialized 

tongue and that of Melanocharis is unspecialized (Mayr and 

Amadon, 19!47), this resemblance may not indicate affinity. 

Another moot affinity of the flowerpeckers is with the birds 

placed by us in the subfamily Remizinae of the Paridae. The 

genus Cephalopyrus of the Himalayas could be an intermediate. 

Finally, one may mention, as possibly repaying study, the resemblance 

of certain flowerpeckers to the Bombycillidae in appearance, 

fondness for mistletoe berries, gregarious habits, 

and other details of behavior. 

NECTARINIIDAE 

The sunbirds, a very compact group (Delacour, 1944), are evidently 

relatives of the Dicaeidae, highly specialized for nectar 

feeding. The tongue is quite similar in sunbirds (Scharnke, 1932) 

and in the nectar-feeding kinds of flowerpeckers, and both build 

a similar pensile nest. Though more specialized as regards plumage 

and modification of the tongue, sunbirds do not show the 

progressive loss of the tenth primary culminating in the nine-


primaried condition of such dicaeid genera as Pardalotus and 

many species of Dicaeum. 

The Dicaeidae are best represented in Australia, Papua, the 

East Indies, and the Philippines, and do not reach Africa; almost 

the reverse is true of the Nectariniidae. 

The curious African genera, Pholidornis and Parmoptila, formerly 

associatedwith the Dicaeidae orNectariniidae, are considered 

by Chapin (1917) to be aberrant, thin-billed Ploceidae, with 

which we agree. 

The African species Hylia prasina has usually been placed in 

the Sylviinae and may be an aberrant member of that group. 

Bates (1930, p. 447) figured the hyoid bones of this species, which 

he found to be flattened like those of a sunbird. The tenth primary 

is rather larger than in typical sunbirds. He placed Hylia 

in a separate family but thought it was allied to the Nectariniidae. 

Serle (1949, p. 212), among others, found its habits and call notes 

to suggest those of a sunbird, though the song is more musical. 

The nest is more or less globular, not much like that of a sunbird. 

Hylia may be a primitive sunbird. Chapin considers this possible 

but not established. 

MELIPHAGIDAE 

The numerous members of this Australo-Papuan family have, 

with one or two exceptions, a highly modified suctorial tongue, 

unlike that of flowerpeckers or sunbirds and surely of independent 

evolution. Otherwise they are rather unspecialized Oscines, except 

for the frequent presence of ornamental tufts of yellow 

feathers or of bare areas or wattles around the eyes. As noted 

above, they may be distantly related to the Dicaeidae. 

The curious nectar-feeding sugar bird, Promerops cafer of 

South Africa, has a stomach and tongue like those of the Australian 

meliphagids (Scharnke, 1932). Its external appearance is also 

similar. It seems definitely not to be a sunbird (Nectariniidae). 

Promerops feeds on flowers of trees of the genus Protea, plants also 

well represented in Australia. Salomonsen (1933) advanced the 

theory that Promerops was once much more widespread (along 

with Protea) and that both were gradually restricted to South 

Africa. The Meliphagidae are, however, so strictly Australian 

in distribution that it is difficult to believe that one genus wandered 

so widely while all the others failed to make their way even 

to Asia, much less to Africa. Also, many Meliphagidae are not


specialized as to food plants. The possibility of some South 

African-Australian transfer remains, of course, highly speculative. 

We leave Promerops as a subfamily of the Meliphagidae, but we 

feel that its similarity may, after all, be parallelism. 

ZOSTEROPIDAE 

The relationships of the Zosteropidae remain to be discovered. 

Since some of them are somewhat specialized for feeding on 

nectar, they may continue to be left in the vicinity of the Meliphagidae 

and Dicaeidae. The nine-primaried wing indicates a 

considerable degree of specialization. 

VIREOS, TANAGERS, FINCHES, AND ALLIES 

The Vireonidae may be the most primitive family of this assemblage. 

Its members often have a functional tenth primary, 

and they are otherwise rather unspecialized, usually insectivorous 

birds. The shrike-billed vireos, Vireolanius, and pepper-shrikes, 

Cyclarhis, have the longest tenth primaries and may well be the 

most primitive of the vireos, despite their large size and bright 

colors. It seems best to place these genera in the Vireonidae and 

not to set up monotypic families for them (Zimmer, 1942). 

The wood warblers (Parulinae) are perhaps most like the vireos. 

The warblers in turn are not far from the Coerebinae, while some 

of the latter have always been admitted to be very difficult to 

separate from many tanagers (Thraupinae). All of these groups 

(except the vireos) may best be considered subfamilies of the 

Thraupidae. Additional subfamilies are the plush-capped finch, 

Catamblyrhynchus, which is not aberrant enough to require a 

family, and the pyrrhuloxias and cardinal grosbeaks (Pyrrhuloxiinae). 

The latter, as is well known, are very difficult to separate 

from the tanagers. Such a genus as Saltator provides a 

transition. Richmondena seems to be congeneric with Pyrrhuloxia, 

so the subfamily takes its name from the latter genus. 

The swallow-tanager, Tersina, has a very peculiar palate (Lucas, 

1895). Its habit of nesting in holes in trees is also remarkable. 

It is best to leave it in a separate family for the present. 

Whether the Pyrrhuloxiinae are closely related to the buntings 

and American sparrows (Emberizinae) or merely parallel them will 

remain uncertain until careful studies have been made of the 

numerous, chiefly Neotropical, genera. Until such time, it is


best to keep the buntings as a subfamily of the Fringillidae. 

The only other subfamily of this family will be the Fringillinae 

which includes the chaffinches, linnets, evening grosbeaks, and 

others. It is the only subfamily of the entire assemblage of 

families better represented in the Old World than in the New, 

but even this group is presumably of American origin. If the 

Ploceidae should be found to be related to the finches, which we 

doubt, the center of origin of the Fringillinae and perhaps other 

subfamilies must be viewed in a different light. 

Sushkin (1924) separated the chaffinches, Fringilla, in a subfamily 

distinct from the goldfinches and their relatives ("Carduelinae"). 

He gave no reason for this separation, and we think it unnecessary. 

A few puzzling genera.may be mentioned. The extinct, hugebilled 

Chaunoproctus of the Bonin Islands is, in our opinion, related 

to Carpodacus, not to the Pyrrhuloxiinae (pair in Leiden 

examined in 1950). Neospiza concolor of San Tome is now recognized 

to be a finch, not a weaverbird, and is to be placed in the 

Fringillinae next to Poliospiza (fide Chapin). The two species of 

Nesospiza from the Tristan da Cunha group seem to belong to 

the Fringillinae, perhaps near Serinus, although Lowe and others 

are correct in believing that the Gough Island finch, Rowettia, is 

not related to Nesospiza but was derived from the South American 

genus Melanodera. From the latter it is scarcely separable 

generically. 

In the "Catalogue of birds of the Americas, part 11" Hellmayr 

(1938) lists no fewer than 28 genera in the Fringillinae and "Carduelinae." 

Of these only the following seem properly to belong 

there: Fringilla, Coccothraustes, Hesperiphona, Pyrrhula, Carpodacus, 

Pinicola, Leucosticte, Chloris, Carduelis, Acanthis, 

Loximitris, Spinus, and Loxia. The extraneous genera included 

by Hellmayr belong for the most part to the Pyrrhuloxiinae and 

perhaps, in a few cases, to the Emberizinae. This includes a few 

genera, such as Sicalis, which resemble goldfinches, Spinus, but 

apparently only superficially. In the Old World there has been 

less trouble in delimiting the Fringillinae, with the exception of the 

genus Montifringilla, which resembles Leucosticte but is actually a 

member of the Ploceidae. 

The Hawaiian honeycreepers (Drepaniidae) while closely related 

to the families discussed above are rather difficult to align 

with any one of them (Amadon, 1950b). For this reason we leave


them as a family. An insectivorous and nectarivorous rather 

than frugivorous or granivorous type of bird seems most primitive 

in this family. 

The Icteridae are a better differentiated and perhaps a somewhat 

older group than most of the other nine-primaried passerines. 

There is a remarkable amount of parallelism between the Icteridae 

as compared with the Ploceidae and Sturnidae, which might indicate 

distant relationship. 

WEAVERBIRDS, STARLINGS, AND ASSOCIATED FAMILIES 

Among the more important papers on the Ploceidae are those 

of Chapin (1917), Sushkin (1927), and Delacour (1943 and earlier). 

It is quite possible that the family is composite. Of the more 

typical weavers, the genera Bubalornis and Dinemellia seem the 

most primitive. They contain species that are rather large, 

coarse, heavy-billed birds suggestive of starlings (von Boetticher, 

1931), and presumably may represent the stock ancestral to 

Ploceus and its relatives. On the other hand, the Estrildinae may 

well have evolved from thin-billed, small birds similar to the living 

species of Pholidornis, Parmoptila, and Nigrita. That Pholidornis 

is a weaver is still open to question, but Chapin considers 

it probable. 

The parasitic Viduinae resemble their hosts, the Estrildinae, 

even to the mouth spots of the nestlings. Some consider this 

mimicry, as indeed it may be in part, but Chapin believes the two 

subfamilies to be closely allied, if, indeed, subfamily separation is 

necessary. The other parasitic weaver, Anomalospiza imberbis, 

belongs to the Ploceinae. It is parasitic on warblers, not upon 

other weavers. We think it unnecessary to recognize subfamilies 

for Plocepasser (Passerinae) or Sporopipes (Ploceinae). 

STURNIDAE 

The genera of the Sturnidae were revised by Amadon (1943).' 

1 A correction to that paper may be given here. Speculipastor bicolor Reichenow 

was placed in the genus Sprec and renamed bicoloratus to avoid conflict with Spreo bicolor 

Gmelin. Dr. H. von Boetticher has brought to my attention that Reichenow 

later (1914, p. 356) made his own genus Speculipastor a synonym of Spreo and used the 

name speculiferus for the species he had named bicolor. This was done in such a cryptic 

manner that the name was missed in all subsequent general lists. The name speculiferus 

Reichenow will stand, however, with bicoloratus and bicolor as synonyms, so 

long as this species is placed in the genus Spreo.-D. A.


Since then Chapin (1948) has shown that Neocichla belongs to this 

family. 

The primitive buffalo-weavers (Bubalornithinae) bear a certain 

resemblance to some of the starlings (von Boetticher, 1931), 

and the two families may be related, although this cannot be 

taken as definitely established. Some of the Papuan glossy 

starlings of the genus Aplonis nest in colonies and build long, 

hanging nests similar to those of such species as Ploceus philippinus. 

Both Passer domesticus (Ploceidae) and Acridotheres 

tristis (Sturnidae) lay their eggs either in holes or in domed tree 

nests, according to local conditions. Whether this similarity in 

nesting habits is indicative of relationship or not is another question. 

The bill of the African ox-bird, Buphagus, and of the Celebesian 

starling, Scissirostrum dubium, are slightly like that of some 

weavers, but this is pure convergence. Scissirostrum is a specialized, 

not a primitive, starling as regards bill form and function 

(Amadon, 1943). 

The long-extinct Fregilupus varius of the Mascarene Islands is 

not unlike some of the Vangidae in color pattern. Recent comparison 

of mounted specimens of Fregilupus in the museums at Leiden 

and at Paris convinced the junior author that it is correctly 

assigned to the Sturnidae. The outermost primary is much reduced 

as in most Sturnidae, not long as in the Vangidae. Presumably 

the same is true of Necropsar leguati, another long-extinct 

Mascarene species. 

ORIOLIDAE; DICRURIDAE 

The orioles and drongos parallel in degree of specialization some 

of the starlings, though they are not necessarily related to them. 

Indeed, it may be that both families are better placed in the vicinity 

of the Campephagidae and Irenidae, but more evidence is needed. 

For a revision of the Dicruridae, see Vaurie (1949). 

As stated above, we tentatively place the genus Tylas of Madagascar 

in the Oriolidae. 

CROWS AND AUSTRALIAN CORVID-LIKE FAMILIES 

CORVIDAE 

For a revision of the genera, see Amadon (1944). Lowe (1949) 

has since established a monotypic family for Zavattariornis, but 

this Abyssinian genus seems to be a generalized corvid. Our rea-


sons for following the earlier authorities who placed the crows at 

the apex of the Class Aves were mentioned earlier. 

The jays are the most primitive of the Corvidae. From them 

evolved first the magpies and finally Corvus, a genus that contains 

what are in many ways the most adaptable and highly evolved of 

all birds. 

The Australian families associated with the crows resemble 

the Corvidae and equal them in degree of specialization but may 

well be of independent evolution. They all have a tarsus that is 

weakly scutellated or even booted, a point of difference from the 

true corvids. 

GRALLINIDAE 

In this family we unite the three genera of so-called Australian 

mud-nest builders, Grallina, Corcorax, and Struthidea. The last 

two give many indications of relationship despite the difference in 

the bill (Amadon, 1944). Grallina (including the Papuan Pomareopsis) 

is a very peculiar genus, but the fact that it builds the same 

bowl-shaped mud nest as the other two suggests that it may, 

after all, be related to them. A preliminary study by the junior 

author, including comparison of the skulls of all three genera, has 

not brought to light any basic differences (Amadon, 1950a). 

Partly to avoid too many monotypic families, we place all three 

genera in the same family but keep Grallina in a separate subfamily. 

Should this course prove correct, the variation in the bill 

of these genera would parallel that in the three genera of the New 

Zealand Callaeidae. Indeed, the two families have much in common. 

CALLAEIDAE 

Stonor (1942) showed that Callaeas, Philesturnus, and Neomorpha 

[= Heteralochac] belong in a single group. He accepted 

Garrod's (1872) supposed evidence for the affinity of Neomorpha 

to the Sturnidae, but perusal of that paper does not indicate that 

Garrod himself meant to imply any close ties. At that time Garrod 

included the Icteridae in the Sturnidae, and he apparently 

found as much resemblance in the icterid as in the true sturnid 

skull to that of the Huia. The chief point of resemblance consisted 

of facets for the attachment of the large digastric muscles, 

which, as Lowe (1938) and Lorenz (1949) have shown, are an 

adaptation for operating a long bill that can be opened forcibly

32 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 149W. 

against resistance. We do not think the Calleidae and Sturnidae 

are allied. 

CRACTICIDAE 

The bell magpies or piping crows of the Australian region, as 

mentioned earlier, resemble the Laniidae and associated families, 

but in our opinion their real relationship is probably with the 

Australian and New Zealand corvid-like families. The Cracticidae 

agree with these families by having the tarsus almost booted. 

Pycraft thought the Cracticidae to be very near to the bowerbirds 

and birds of paradise. There is a striking resemblance in color 

pattern between Grallina and some species of Cracticus, but Grallina 

is so aberrant that this cannot safely be used as a basis for 

comparison. 

In the largest forms of Strepera (Cracticidae) the plumage is, 

almost or entirely black, and the hook on the bill may be absent 

in adults. The result is a bird very much like a crow, Corvus, 

but this is parallelism, although the families to which these genera 

belong may not be very distantly related. For a further discussion 

and revision of the Cracticidae, see Amadon (in press). 

PTILONORHYNCHIDAE; PARADISAEIDAE 

Stonor (1937) found some consistent differences between the 

skulls of bower birds and birds of paradise so that the two groups 

may be placed in separate families. Similarities in behavior and 

in general morphology, however, indicate that they are not distantly 

related. 

SYSTEMATIC LIST 

All living or recent orders and families are given in the following 

list, but subfamilies and tribes have been introduced only as 

necessary to indicate new groupings. Suborders have been listed 

only in the Passeres. For the song birds, vernacular groupings 

are used also, to aid in associating related families. 

The numbers of recent known species for each unit follow the 

names, those of subfamilies being in parentheses. 

Order Struthiones 

Family Struthionidae, Ostrich, 1 

Order Apteryges, Moas (fossil) and Kiwis 

Family Apterygidae, Kiwis, 3


Order Casuarii 

Family Casuariidae, Cassowaries, 3 

Family Dromaeidae, Emus, 2 

Order Rheae 

Family Rheidae, Rheas, 2 

Order Crypturi (Tinamiformes) 

Family Tinamidae, Tinamous, 33 

Order Sphenisci 

Family Spheniscidae, Penguins, 16 

Order Tubinares (Procellariiformes) 

Family Diomedeidae, Albatrosses, 13 

Family Procellariidae, 73 

Subfamily Hydrobatinae, Storm Petrels, (20) 

Subfamily Procellariinae, Shearwaters, etc. (53) 

Family Pelecanoididae, Diving Petrels, 4 

Order Podicipedes (Colymbiformes) 

Family Podicipitidae, Grebes, 20 

Order Gaviae 

Family Gaviidae, Loons, 4 

Order Steganopodes (Pelecaniformes) 

Family Phaethontidae, Tropic Birds, 3 

Family Fregatidae, Frigate Birds, 5 

Family Phalacrocoracidae, Cormorants, Anhingas, 31 

Subfamily Phalacrocoracinae, Cormorants, (30) 

Subfamily Anhinginae, Anhingas, (1) 

Family Sulidae, Boobies, Gannets, 9 

Family Pelecanidae, Pelicans, 6 

Order Falcones or Accipitres 

Family Accipitridae, Hawks, Eagles, etc., 205 

Family Falconidae, Falcons, etc., 58 

Family Pandionidae, Osprey, 1 

Family Cathartidae, New World Vultures, 6 

Family Sagittariidae, Secretary Bird, 1 

Order Gressores (Ciconiiformes) 

Family Ardeidae, Herons, etc., 59 

Family Threskiornithidae, Ibises, etc., 28 

Family Ciconiidae, Storks, 17 

Family Scopidae, Hammerhead, 1 

Order Phoenicopteri 

Family Phoenicopteridae, Flamingos, 6 

Order Anseres 

Family Anatidae, Swans, Geese, Ducks, 145 

Family Anhimidae, Screamers, 3 

Order Galli 

Family Megapodiidae, Brush Turkeys, 10 

Family Cracidae, Guans, etc., 38 

Family Phasianidae, Pheasants, etc., 190 

Subfamily Phasianinae, Pheasants, Quail, etc., (16-5) 

Subfamily Numidinae, Guineafowl, (7)


Subfamily Tetraoninae, Grouse, (18) 

Family Meleagrididae, Turkeys, 2 

Family Opisthocomidae, Hoatzin, 1 

Order Cuculi 

Family Musophagidae, Turacos, 19 

Family Cuculidae, Cuckoos, 128 

Order Grues 

Family Cariamidae, Seriamas, 2 

Family Psophiidae, Trumpeters, 3 

Family Gruidae, Cranes, 14 

Family Aramidae, Limpkin, 1 

Family Eurypygidae, Sun Bittern, 1 

Family Heliornithidae, Sun Grebes, 3 

Family Rhynochetidae, Kagu, 1 

Family Otididae, Bustards, 23 

Family Rallidae, Rails, 132 

Family Mesoenatidae, Roatelos, 3 

Family Turnicidae, Button Quails, 16 

Subfamily Turnicinae, Typical Button Quails, (15) 

Subfamily Pedionominae, Plains Wanderer or Collared Hemipode, (1) 

Order Laro-Limicolae (Charadriiformes) 

Family Jacanidae, Jacanas, 7 

Family Thinocoridae, Seed Snipe, 4 

Family Chionididae, Sheath Bills, 2 

Family Dromadidae, Crab Plover, 1 

Family Burhinidae, Thick-knees, 9 

Family Haematopodidae, Oystereatchers, 6 

Family Charadriidae, Plovers, Sandpipers, etc., 152 

Subfamily Charadriinae, Plovers, (63) 

Subfamily Scolopacinae, Sandpipers, etc., (77) 

Subfamily Phalaropinae, Phalaropes, (3) 

Subfamily Recurvirostrinae, Avocets, Stilts, (7) 

Subfamily Rostratulinae, Painted Snipe, (2) 

Family Glareolidae, Pratincoles, Coursers, 16 

Family Laridae, Gulls, etc., 89 

Subfamily Stereorariinae, Jaegers, Skuas, (4) 

Subfamily Larinae, Gulls, (43) 

Subfamily Sterninae, Terns, (39) 

Subfamily Rynchopinae, Skimmers, (3) 

Family Alcidae, Auks, etc., 22 

Order Columbae 

Family Pteroclidae, Sand Grouse, 16 

Family Columbidae, Pigeons, 289 

Family Raphidae, Dodos, 3 

Order Psittaci 

Family Psittacidae, Parrots, 316 

Order Striges 

Family Strigidae, Owls, 134 

Subfamily Striginae, Typical Owls, (123)

1951 A CLASSIFICATION OF RECENT BIRDS 3.5 

Subfamily Tytoninae, Barn Owls, (11) 

Order Caprimulgi 

Family Aegothelidae, Owlet Frogmouths, 8 

Family Podargidae, Frogmouths, 12 

Family Caprimulgidae, Goatsuckers, etc., 67 

Family Nyctibiidae, Potoos, 5 

Family Steatornithidae, Oil Bird, 1 

Order Trogones 

Family Trogonidae, Trogons, 35 

Order Coraciae 

Family Coraciidae, Rollers, 17 

Subfamily Leptosomatinae, Cuckoo Rollers, (1) 

Subfamily Brachypteraciinae, Ground Rollers, (5) 

Subfamily Coraciinae, Typical Rollers, (11) 

Family Alcedinidae, Kingfishers, 87 

Family Meropidae, Bee Eaters, 25 

Family Momotidae, Motmots, 8 

Family Todidae, Todies, 5 

Family Upupidae, Hoopoes, 7 

Subfamily Upupinae, Typical Hoopoe, (1) 

Subfamily Phoeniculinae, Tree Hoopoes, (6) 

Family Bucerotidae, Hornbills, 45 

Order Colii 

Family Coliidae, Mousebirds, 6 

Order Macrochires (Apodiformes; Micropodiformes) 

Family Apodidae, Swifts, 79 

Subfamily Apodinae, Typical Swifts, (76) 

Subfamily Hemiprocninae, Crested Swifts, (3) 

Family Trochilidae, Hummingbirds; 319 

Order Pici 

Family Bucconidae, Puffbirds, 32 

Family Galbulidae, Jacamars, 14 

Family Capitonidae, Barbets, 76 

Family Picidae, Woodpeckers, etc., 210 

Subfamily Jynginae, Wrynecks, (2) 

Subfamily Picumninae, Piculets, (29) 

Subfamily Picinae, Woodpeckers, (179) 

Family Ramphastidae, Toucans, 37 

Family Indicatoridae, Honey Guides, 12 

Order Passeres 

Suborder Eurylaimi 

Family Eurylaimidae, Broadbills, 14 

Suborder Tyranni 

Superfamily Furnarioidea (Tracheophonae) 

Family Rhinocryptidae, Tapaculos, 26 

Family Conopophagidae, Ant-pipits, 10 

Family Formicariidae, Antbirds and Allies, 221 

Family Furnariidae, Ovenbirds and Woodhewers, 259 

Subfamily Furnariinae, Ovenbirds, (212)


Subfamily Dendrocolaptinae, Woodhewers, (47) 

Superfamily Tyrannoidea (Haploophonae) 

Family Pittidae, Pittas, 23 

Family Philepittidae, Philepittas, 4 

Family Xenicidae, New Zealand Wrens, 4 

Family Tyrannidae, Tyrants, Sharp-bills, 366 

Subfamily Tyranninae, Tyrant Flycatchers, (365) 

Subfamily Oxyruncinae, Sharp-bills, (1) 

Family Pipridae, Manakins, 59 

Family Cotingidae, Cotingas, 90 

Family Phytotomidae, Plant-cutters, 3 

Suborder Menurae 

Family Menuridae, Lyrebirds, 2 

Family Atrichornithidae, Scrub-birds, 2 

Suborder Oscines, Song Birds 

Family Alaudidae, Larks, 75 

Family Hirundinidae, Swallows, 75 

Subfamily Hirundininae, Typical Swallows, (74) 

Subfamily Pseudochelidoninae, African River-martin, (1) 

BULBULS AND ALLIES 

Family Pycnonotidae, Bulbuls, 109 

Family Irenidae, Fairy Bluebirds and Leafbirds, 14 

Family Campephagidae, Caterpillar Birds or Cuckoo-shrikes, 72 

PRIMITIVE INSECT EATERS 

Family Muscicapidae, 1460 

Subfamily Muscicapinae, Old World Flycatchers, (378) 

Tribe Muscicapini, Typical Flycatchers 

Tribe Monarchini, Monarchs 

Tribe Rhipidurini, Fantails 

Tribe Pachycephalini, Whistlers 

Subfamily Timaliinae, Babblers, (282) 

Tribe Pellorneini, Jungle Babblers 

Tribe Pomatorhinini, Scimitar and Wren Babblers 

Tribe Timaliini, Tit-babblers 

Tribe Chamaeini, Wren-tits and Parrotbills 

Tribe Turdoidini, Laughing Thrushes, etc. 

Tribe Picathartini, Picathartes 

Tribe Cinclosomatini, Ground Babblers, etc. 

Subfamily Sylviinae, Warblers (313) 

Tribe Sylviini, Typical Warblers (includes Regulus) 

Tribe Polioptilini, Gnatcatchers, etc. 

Subfamily Malurinae, Australian Warblers, (85) 

Subfamily Turdinae, Thrushes, (304) 

Tribe Turdini, Typical Thrushes 

Tribe Zeledoniini, Wren-thrush 

Tribe Myiophoneini, Blue Thrushes 

Tribe Cochoini, Cochoas


Tribe Enicurini, Fork Tails 

Subfamily Miminae, Mockers and Thrashers, (30) 

Subfamily Troglodytinae, Wrens, (63) 

Subfamily Cinclinae, Dippers, (5) 

Family Prunellidae, Hedge Sparrows or Accentors, 12 

Family Motacillidae, Wagtails and Pipits, 48 

SHRIKES AND ALLIES 

Family Laniidae, Shrikes, 67 

Subfamily Laniinae, Typical Shrikes, (25) 

Subfamily Malaconotinae, Bush Shrikes, (42) 

Family Prionopidae, Helmet Shrikes, 14 

Subfamily Prionopinae, Helmet Shrikes, (13) 

Subfamily Pityriasidinae, Bornean Bristle-head, (1) 

Family Vangidae, Vangas, 11 

WAXWINGS AND WOOD SWALLOWS 

Family Artamidae, Wood Swallows, 10 

Family Bombycillidae, Waxwings, etc., 9 

Subfamily Hypocoliinae, Hypocolius, (1) 

Subfamily Dulinae, Palm Chat, (1) 

Subfamily Ptilogonatinae, Silky Flycatchers, (4) 

Subfamily Bombycillinae, Waxwings, (3) 

CREEPERS, NUTHATCHES, AND TITMICE 

Family Certhiidae, Typical Creepers, 6 

Family Sittidae, Nuthatches, etc., 29 

Subfamily Salporninae, Spotted Creepers, etc., (12) 

Subfamily Sittinae, Nuthatches, etc., (16) 

Subfamily Hyposittinae, Coral-billed Nuthatch, (1) 

Family Paridae, Titmice, 64 

Subfamily Parinae, Typical Titmice and Chickadees (46) 

Subfamily Remizinae, Penduline Titmice and Verdins, (8) 

Subfamily Aegithalinae, Long-tailed Titmice and Bush Tits, (7) 

OLD WORLD NECTAR EATERS 

Family Dicaeidae, Flowerpeckers, 54 

Family Nectariniidae, Sunbirds, 104 

Family Meliphagidae, Honeyeaters, 160 

Subfamily Meliphaginae, Australian Honeyeaters, (159) 

Subfamily Promeropinae, Sugar-bird, (1) 

Family Zosteropidae, White-eyes, 80 

VIREOS, FINCHES, AND ALLIES 

Family Vireonidae, Vireos, 41 

Family Drepaniidae, Hawaiian Honeycreepers, 22 

Family Thraupidae, Tanagers, etc., 474 

Subfamily Parulinae, Wood Warblers, (109)


Subfamily Coerebinae, Honeycreepers, (36) 

Subfamily Catamblyrhynchinae, Plush-capped Finch, (1) 

Subfamily Thraupinae, Tanagers, (196) 

Subfamily Pyrrhuloxiinae, Cardinal Grosbeaks, (132) 

Family Tersinidae, Swallow-tanager, 1 

Family Fringillidae, Typical Finches, 293 

Subfamily Emberizinae, Buntings and American Sparrows, (171) 

Subfamily Fringillinae, Chaffinches, Linnets, and Allies, (122) 

Family Icteridae, Troupials, American Blackbirds, and Allies, 88 

WEAVERBIRDS, STARLINGS, AND ALLIES 

Family Ploceidae, Weaverbirds, 263 

Subfamily Bubalornithinae, Buffalo-weavers, (3) 

Subfamily Passerinae, Sparrow-weavers, (35) 

Subfamily Ploceinae, Typical Weavers, (109) 

Subfamily Estrildinae, Waxbills and Allies, (107) 

Subfamily Viduinae, Widow-birds, (9) 

Family Sturnidae, Starlings, 103 

Subfamily Sturninae, Starlings, (101) 

Subfamily Buphaginae, Tick-birds, (2) 

Family Oriolidae, Old World Orioles, 34 

Family Dicruridae, Drongos, 20 

CROWS AND AUSTRALIAN CROW-LIKE BIRDS 

Family Corvidae, Crows, Jays, Magpies, 100 

Family Cracticidae, Bell Magpies, etc., 11 

Family Grallinidae, Magpie-larks, etc., 4 

Subfamily Grallinae, Magpie-larks, (2) 

Subfamily Corcoracinae, White-winged Chough; Gray Jumper, (2) 

Family Callaeidae, Wattlebirds, 3 

Family Ptilonorhynchidae, Bowerbirds, 17 

Family Paradisaeidae, Birds of Paradise, 43 

LITERATURE CITED 

AMADON, DEAN 

1943. The genera of starlings and their relationships. Amer. Mus. Novitates, 

no. 1247, 16 pp. 

1944. The genera of Corvidae and their relationships. Ibid., no. 1251, 21 pp. 

1950a. Australian mud nest builders. Emu, vol. 50, pp. 123-127. 

1950b. The Hawaiian honeycreepers (Aves, Drepaniidae). Bull. Amer. Mus 

Nat. Hist., vol. 95, pp. 151-262, 23 figs., pls. 9-15, 15 tables. 

[In press.] Le pseudo-souimanga de Madagascar (Neodrepanis). L'Oiseau. 

[In press.] Taxonomic notes on the Australian butcher-birds. Amer. Mus. 

Novitates. 

ARVEY, M. DALE 

1949. A revision of the passerine family Bombycillidae [abstract]. Wilson 

Bull., vol. 61, p. 198. 

BATES, GEORGE LATIMER 

1930. Handbook of the birds of West Africa. London, John Bale, Sons and 

Danielsson, xxiv + 572 pp.

1951 A CLASSIFICATION O RECENT BIRDS 39 

BEECHER, WILLIAM J. 

[MS. ] [The American nine-primaried passerines and allies.] 

B6HM, M. 

1930. t.ber den Bau des jugendlichen Schddels von Balaeniceps rex nebst 

Bemerkungen uber dessen systematische Stellung und uber das Gaumenskelett 

der V6gel. Zeitschr. f. Morph. Okol. Tiere, vol. 17, pp. 

677-718. 

BOETTICHER, HANS VON 

1931. Die verwandtschaftlich-systematische Stellung der Webervogel (Ploceidae) 

zu den Finkenvdgeln (Fringillidae) und Staren (Sturnidae). 

Senckenbergiana, vol. 13, pp. 147-153. 

1943. Die phylogenetisch-systematische Stellung von Anseranas. Zool. 

Anz., vol. 142, pp. 55-58. 

CHAPIN, JAMES P. 

1917. The classification of the weaver-birds. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 

vol. 37, pp. 243-280. 

1921. Notes on a new ox-pecker and other little-known birds of the Congo. 

Amer. Mus. Novitates, no. 17, 16 pp. 

1948. Neocichla gutturalis (Bocage) is a starling. Auk, vol. 65, pp. 289-291. 

COMPTON, LAWRENCE V. 

1938. The pterylosis of the Falconiformes with special attention to the taxonomic 

position of the osprey. Univ. California Publ. Zool., vol. 42, 

pp. 173-212. 

DELACOUR, JEAN 

1942, 1943. The bush-warblers of the genera Cettia and Bradypterus, with 

notes on allied genera and species. Ibis (1942), pp. 509-520; (1943), 

pp. 27-40. 

1943a. A revision of the genera and species of the family Pycnonotidae (bulbuls). 

Zoologica, vol. 28, pp. 17-28. 

1943b. A revision of the subfamily Estrildinae of the family Ploceidae. Ibid., 

vol. 28, pp. 69-86. 

1944. A revision of the family Nectariniidae (sunbirds). Ibid., vol. 29, pp. 

17-38. 

1946. Les timaliines. L'Oiseau, vol. 16 pp. 7-36. 

1951. The pheasants of the world. London, Country Life, Ltd. 

DELACOUR, JEAN, AND DEAN AMADON 

1949. The relationships of Hypocolius. Ibis, vol. 91, pp. 427-429. 

[In press.] The systematic position of Picathartes. Ibis. 

DELACOUR, JEAN, AND ERNST MAYR 

1945. The family Anatidae. Wilson Bull., vol. 57, pp. 3-55. 

1946. Supplementary notes on the family Anatidae. Ibid., vol. 58, pp. 104- 

110. 

FURBRINGER MAXIMILIAN 

1888. Untersuchungen zur Morphologie und Systematik der Vogel. Amsterdam, 

van Holkema, 2 vols., 1751 pp. 

GARROD, A. H. 

1872. Notes on the anatomy of the Huia bird (Heteralocha gouldi). Proc. 

Zool. Soc. London, pp. 643-647. 

HEINROTH, OSKAR, AND MAGDALENA HEINROTH 

1921-1926. Die V6gel Mitteleuropas. I. Berlin, Hugo Bermiihler, x + 339 pp.


HELLMAYR, CHARLES E. 

1938. Catalogue of the birds of the Americas. Part 11. Chicago, Illinois, 

Chicago Natural History Museum, vi + 662 pp. 

HOPKINS, G. H. E. 

1942. The Mallophaga as an aid to the classification of birds. Ibis, pp. 94- 

106. 

1949. Some factors which have modified the relationship between parasite 

and host in the Mallophaga. Proc. Linnaean Soc., London, vol. 161, 

pp. 37-39. 

HowARD, HILDEGARDE 

1950. Fossil evidence of avian evolution. Ibis, vol. 92, pp. 1-21. 

HUDSON, GEORGE ELFORD 

1937. Studies on the muscles of the pelvic appendage in birds. Amer. Midland 

Nat., vol. 18, pp. 1-108. 

1948. Studies on the muscles of the pelvic appendage in birds. II: The heterogeneous 

order Falconiformes. Ibid., vol. 39, pp. 102-127. 

KRAMER, GUSTAV 

1930. Bewegungsstudien an Vogeln des Berliner Zoologischen Gartens. Jour. 

f. Ornith., vol. 78, pp. 257-268. 

LANHAM, URLESS N. 

1947. Notes on the phylogeny of the Pelecaniformes. Auk, vol. 64, pp. 65- 

70. 

LORENZ, KONRAD 

1949. Die Beziehungen zwischen Kopfform und Zirkelbewegung bei Sturniden 

und Ikteriden. In Mayr, E., and E. Schuz (editors), Festschrift 

zum 60 Geburtstag von Erwin Stresemann. Heidelberg, Carl Winter, 

pp. 153-157. 

LOWE, PERCY R. 

1938. Some anatomical notes on the genus Pseudochelidon Hartlaub with 

reference to its taxonomic position. Ibis, pp. 429-437. 

1939. On the systematic position of the swifts (suborder Cypseli) and humming-birds 

(suborder Trochili) with special reference to their relation 

to the order Passeriformes. Trans. Zool. Soc. London, vol. 24, pp. 

307-348. 

1949. On the position of the genus Zavattariornis. Ibis, vol. 91, pp. 102- 

104. 

LUCAS, FREDERIC A. 

1891. Notes on the osteology of the Paridae, Sitta and Chamaea. Proc. U. S. 

Natl. Mus., vol. 13, pp. 337-346. 

1895. Osteological and pterylographical characters of the Procniatidae. 

Ibid., vol. 18, pp. 505-507. 

MCDOWELL, SAM 

1948. The bony palate of birds. Part 1. The Palaeognathae. Auk, vol. 

65, pp. 520-549. 

MAYR, ERNST 

1943. What genera belong to the family Prionopidae? Ibis, vol. 85, pp. 216- 

218. 

1945. Birds of the Southwest Pacific. New York, The Macmillan Co., 

316 pp. 

1946. The number of species of birds. Auk, vol. 63, pp. 64-69.


MAYR, ERNST, AND DEAN AMADON 

1947. A review of the Dicaeidae. Amer. Mus. Novitates, no. 1360, 32 pp. 

MAYR, ERNST, AND JAMES BOND 

1943. Notes on the generic classification of the swallows, Hirundinidae. Ibis, 

vol. 85, pp. 334-341. 

MOREAU, R. E. 

1938. A contribution to the biology of the Musophagiformes, the so-called 

plantain-eaters. Ibis, pp. 639-671. 

NEWTON, ALFRED, ASSISTED BY HANS GADOW 

1893-1896. A dictionary of birds. London, Adam and Charles Black, 

1088 pp. 

OBERHOLSER, H. C. 

1917a. Diagnosis of a new laniine family of Passeriformes. Jour. Washington 

Acad. Sci., vol. 7, pp. 180-181. 

1917b. Diagnosis of a new pycnonotine family of Passeriformes. Ibid., vol. 7, 

pp. 537-541. 

OLIVER, W. R. B. 

1945. Avian evolution in New Zealand and Australia. Emu, vol. 45, pp. 55- 

77 and 119-152. 

1949. The moas of New Zealand and Australia. Dominion Mus. Bull., 

Wellington, no. 15, x + 206 pp. 

PETERS, JAMES LEE 

1931-1948. Check-list of birds of the world. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 

Harvard University Press, vols. 1-6. 

PORTMANN, ADOLPH 

1938. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der postembryonalen Entwicklung der Vogel. 

Rev. Suisse Zool., vol. 45, pp. 273-348. 

1947. etudes sur la cer~bralisation chez les oiseaux. II. Alauda, vol. 15, 

pp. 1-15. 

PYCRAFT, W. P. 

1905. On the systematic position of Zeledonia coronata, with some observations 

on the position of the Turdidae. Ibis, pp. 1-24. 

RAND, AUSTIN L. 

1936a. The distribution and habits of Madagascar birds. Bull. Amer. Mus. 

Nat. Hist., vol. 72, pp. 143-499. 

1936b. The rediscovery of the nuthatch Daphoenositta with notes on its affinities. 

Auk, vol. 53, pp. 306-310. 

REICHENOW, ANTON 

1914. Die Vogel. Stuttgart, Ferdinand Enke, vol. 2, viii + 628 pp. 

RIDGWAY, ROBERT 

1901, 1904, 1907. Birds of North and Middle America. Bull.- U. S. Natl. 

Mus., no. 50, pt. 1, xxxii + 715 pp.; pt. 3, xxx + 801 pp.; pt. 4, xxii + 

973 pp. 

SALOMONSEN, FINN 

1933. Zur Systematik und Biologie von Promerops. Ornith. Monatsber., vol. 

41, pp. 37-40. 

SCHARNKE, HANS 

1932. Ueber den Bau der Zunge der Nectariniidae, Promeropidae und Drepanididae 

nebst Bemerkungen zur Systematik der blutenbesuchenden 

Passeres. Jour. f. Ornith., vol. 80, pp. 114-123.


SCLATER, WILLIAM LUTLEY 

1924-1930. Systema avium aethiopicarum. London, British Ornithologists' 

Union, iv + 922 pp. 

SERLE, WILLIAM 

1949. Birds of Sierra Leone (part IV). Ostrich, vol. 20, pp. 114-126. 

SETTERWALL, CARL GUSTAF 

1901. Studier 6fver Syrinx hos Polymyoda Passeres. Lund, Akademisk 

Afhandling, 128 pp., 7 pis. 

SIMPSON, GEORGE GAYLORD 

1946. Fossil penguins. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 87, pp. 1-100. 

STEINBACHER, JOACHIM 

1937. Anatomische Untersuchungen uber die systematische Stellung der 

Galbulidae und Bucconidae. Arch. f. Naturgesch., new ser., vol. 6, pp. 

417-518. 

STEJNEGER, LEONHARD 

1885. Birds. In Kingsley, J. S. (editor), the standard natural history. 

Boston, S. E. Cassino, vol. 4, 558 pp. 

1905. The birds of the genus Cinclus and their geographical distribution. 

Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 47, pt. 4, pp. 421-430. 

STOLPE, MAX 

1935. Colymbus, Hesperornis, Podiceps: ein Vergleich ihrer hinteren Extremitat. 

Jour. f. Ornith., vol. 83, pp. 115-128. 

STONOR, C. R. 

1937. On the systematic position of the Ptilonorhynchidae. Proc. Zool. Soc. 

London, ser. B, pt. 3, pp. 475-490. 

1942. Anatomical notes on the New Zealand wattled crow (Callaeas), with 

especial reference to its powers of flight. Ibis, pp. 1-18. 

STRESEMANN, ERWIN 

1923. Ueber die systematische Stellung der Paradoxornithinae. Verhandl. 

Ornith. Gesellsch. Bayern, vol. 15, pp. 387-390. 

1927-1934. Aves. In Kfikenthal, Willy, and Thilo Krumbach, Handbuch 

der Zoologie. Berlin and Leipzig, vol. 7, second half, 899 pp. 

SUSHKIN, PETER P. 

1924-1925. [On the Fringillidae and allied groups.] Bull. Brit. Ornith. 

Club, vol. 45, pp. 36-39. 

1927. On the anatomy and classification of the weaver-birds. Bull. Amer. 

Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. 57, pp. 1-32. 

SZIDAT, LOTHAR 

1942. Ueber die Beziehungen zwischen Parasitologie und Ornithologie. Vogelzug, 

vol. 13, pp. 17-35. 

VAURIE, CHARLES 

1949. A revision of the bird family Dicruridae. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. 

Hist., vol. 93, pp. 199-342. 

WETMORE, ALEXANDER 

1934. A systematic classification for the birds of the world, revised and 

amended. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 89, pp. 1-11. 

ZIMMER, JOHN T. 

1942. Studies of Peruvian birds. No. XLI. The genera Hylophilus, Smaragdolanius, 

and Cyclarhis. Amer. Mus. Novitates, no. 1160, 16 pp.

NOVITATES - American Museum of Natural History

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?