| OCR Text |
Show ME. W. P. PYCRAFT ON THE [May 2, My own work most certainly tends to support Furbringer s conclusions. It is possible that the Eurylaemidae will prove to be related both to the Caprimulgi and Cypseli. As regards the connection with the Pici, it is significant to note that the squamosal, in the nestling, closely resembles that of the Passerine type, inasmuch as it overlaps the frontal, an arrangement which does not appear to occur elsewhere among the Coraciiformes. Coming now to the question of the relationship of the Eurylaemidae to the remaining Passeres, I would remark, at the outset, that there seems scarcely sufficient ground for separating the former so widely from the latter as has been done by many during recent years. This separation foreshadowed by Garrod, and consummated by Forbes, has been widened even further than either of these distinguished workers would have considered justified. Forbes, just twenty-five years ago (2), summarised the main features of the Eurylaemidae, from the systematic point of view, as follows:-" . . . . They are not Tracheophone ; and in that they possess the sciatic instead of the femoral artery, they differ from the Pipridao and Cotingidae, with which they have so often been associated. From these, too, they differ, as they do from the Tyranniclse, Pittida?, and Rupicola, in the details * of the syrinx as well as in the simple manubrium sterni and other points. As has already been stated, they differ from all the other Passeres in the retention of a vinculum in the deep plantars of the foot . . . ." In a second contribution to this subject during the same month these views were repeated. After referring again to the syrinx and syndactyle foot, he goes on to remark :-" The peculiarities of the Eurylaemidae, and especially their oft-spoken-of retention of the plantar vinculum, are sufficient, I think, to justify their forming a main division of Passeres by themselves, as suggested by Prof. Garrod, which may be termed Desmodactyli, in distinction from the others, Eleutherodactyli . . ." It seems to me open to question whether so wide a separation is justified. After all, the existence, or rather we may say the survival, of the plantar vinculum is not so very surprising, not more so than the persistence of basipterygoid processes for example-which crop up sporadically among groups which have, as a whole, long since lost them. In Calyptomena, according to Beddard, this vinculum is wanting. Some importance has been given to the statement made by Forbes, that in Eurylcemus ochromelas there is a second vinculum : the additional slip " being given off lower down, from the hallux tendon, which joins the tendon of the digital flexor at the point where the latter, splitting into three, receives the main vinculum." Gadow (4), commenting on this statement, remarks that this arrangement closely agrees with what obtains in Upupa and Irrisor, a fact which suggests the origin of the Passerine plantars from this type. * Italics mine.- W . P. P. |
