| OCR Text |
Show 1878.] MR. D. G. ELLIOT ON THE GENUS PTILOPUS. 511 of generic value; and it is only when a great series has been obtained that it is perceived how these gradually disappear or become evolved into something quite different. It is from the lack of material to show this fact that such a genus (among others) as Chryscena has been accepted for Pt. victor and Pt. luteovirens. First established for the latter species, chiefly on account of the lanceolate form of the feathers, it was quickly perceived, on the discovery of Pt. victor, that the genus could not rest on this character; for the two species Fig. 4. Ptihpns geelvinckianus. Mafor. First primary normal in shape; tarsus completely feathered. Fig. 5. Ptilopus coronulatus. Aru. First primary abruptly attenuated; tarsus completely feathered. were generically essentially the same, and yet Pt. victor did not possess lanceolate feathers. The partly covered tarsus is not sufficient to separate them from Ptilopus; for, as I have shown, many species of that genus have also the tarsus half nude. The normal shape of the first primary also fails, as this is also possessed by other species of Ptilopus; and therefore no characters remain worthy of separating these birds generically from the other members of the group, those that exist being only of specific value. Bonaparte has proposed most of the generic divisions; and he founded them mainly upon the colour of plumage, sometimes placing the two sexes, or adult and young, of the same species in different genera (vide Pt. superbus, Pt. luteovirens, & c ) . I have not been able to discover |
