SEPTEMBER,1985 221 GENERIC ALLOCATION OF THE TAWNY-CROWNED HONEYEATER WALTER E. BOLES AND N.W. LONGMORE INTRODUCTION in pattern. It exhibits sexual dimorphism in The genus Glyciphila Swainson 1837 was plumage but shares with the other black and proposed for the Tawny-crowned Honeyeater white species characters which indicate that G. melanops. Subsequent authors have at they are related (see below). In contrast, adults various times placed as many as six other of melanops are various shades of white and species in this genus. These fall into several brown. There is some superficial resemblance natural groups which, other than being small in pattern- between melanops and P. pyr­ slender honeyeaters with thin, slightly curved rhoptera: they lack the distinctive black and bills, have little else to suggest that they form a white mottling of the other species. Both have natural assemblage. Mees (1961) considered dark crescent-shaped marks on the sides of the Glyciphila to be an artificial grouping and upper ventral surface which have been sug­ Salomonsen (1967) allocated all the species to gested as an indication of relationship; however other genera, disbanding Glyciphila altogether. in melanops, these are on the sides of the lower Among Salomonsen's changes was the com­ throat, while in pyrrhoptera they are on the bination of four species of Glyciphila breast, further towards the centreline of the (melanops, White-fronted Honeyeater body. albifrons, Barred Honeyeater undulata of New Caledonia and White-bellied Honeyeater Juvenile plumage patterns notabilis of New Hebrides) and two species of An important distinction between melanops Meliornis G.R. Gray 1840 (New Holland and the Australian Phylidonyris is the plumage Honeyeater novaehollandiae and White­ pattern of the juvenile bird. (Juvenile cheeked Honeyeater nigra) with the Crescent [=juvenal] plumage is used here in the sense of Honeyeater Phylidonyrispyrrhoptera, with this Dwight (1900), i.e. the first covering of true new arrangement taking the oldest name, contour feathers following the natal down). In Phylidonyris Lesson 1831. most honeyeaters, including the four black and This treatment for the Australian species was white species, the juvenile's pattern is a dull ver­ followed by Schodde (1975) who noted dif­ sion of that of the adults. In melanops, the ferences between melanops and the other juvenile is heavily streaked and has a yellow species but felt that its inclusion in Phylidonyris throat, a pattern quite unlike the adult's (see was preferable to maintaining it in a separate, plate 78 in Pizzey 1980). It also lacks the adult's monotypic genus. We consider that these dif­ dark crescent and sagittate markings on the ferences and others not cited in that paper war­ breast and distinctive tawny crown. While a rant the retention of Glyciphila for melanops, a transient yellow throat appears in the young of course also followed by Colston in Hall (1974). several varied and not closely related genera of honeyeaters, e.g. Philemon, Conopophila, While we are acquainted with all Australian Cissomela, etc., it does not occur in the black species in the field and in the hand, we have no and white Phylidonyris. The streaked pattern field experience with undulata of New of juvenile melanops is not found in any other Caledonia and notabilis of New Hebrides. Australian honeyeater and we interpret it as a uniquely derived character state in the GENERIC CHARACTERS OF MELANOPS Meliphagidae. Adult plumage patterns The four Australian Phylidonyris species Nestling mouth markings other than melanops are all patterned black and We have found that in nestlings of most white with prominent yellow edging to the Australian passerines the inside mouth is flight feathers. Two of these, P. novaehollan­ yellow-orange in colour and lacks any markings diae and P. nigra, are particularly close. (Boles & Longmore, 1985), a state we consider Phylidonyris pyrrhoptera is the most different to be the ancestral condition. In honeyeaters, 222 SOUTH AUSTRALIAN ORNITHOLOGIST, 29 we found this condition and four other, dif­ and other species. In novaehollandiae, pyr­ ferent patterns of markings, including one rhoptera and albifrons, the maxillo-palatines restricted to P. nigra, P. novaehollandiae and are vacuolated and bulbous, whereas in P. pyrrhoptera. This pattern consists of a melanops, they are flat. A more detailed ac­ yellow-orange edge to the mouth while the re­ count of the variation of this character will be mainder of the buccal cavity and pharynx is published by Parker. black (Maclean & Vernon 1976; Boles & Longmore, 1985: Fig Ii; Reader's Digest 1976: Eggs 496, 498). In P. albifrons and melanops there The eggs of Phylidonyris usually have a pale are no such markings. We interpret the unusual salmon-buff ground colour with darker brown mouth-marking of the other three species as a or reddish-brown spots and dots, underlaid uniquely derived character state within the with pale lavender-grey ones, often forming a Meliphagidae. Its absence in P. albifrons does wreath at the larger end. Eggs of melanops are not mean that this species does not belong to consistently paler with fewer markings and are, Phylidonyris; the plumage similarities support on average, larger in size (Campbell 1900; this species' inclusion in that genus. It means North 1906; pers. obs.). "Typically the eggs [of that nigra-novaehollandiae-pyrrhoptera are melanops] may be distinguished from those of more closely related to each other than any is to any other Honey-eater by the sparseness and albifrons. The retention of the ancestral condi­ washed out appearances of their eggs..." tion in P. albifrons and in melanops offers no (North 1906: 73). taxonomic information and cannot be used to supporta relationship between these two or bet­ ween melanops and any other species (see Hen­ DISCUSSION nig 1966). Because of the differences given here, we consider it advisable to recognize the genus Display flights Glyciphila for melanops. The distribution of The presence of similar display flights (a presumably derived nestling and juvenile rapid rise above the vegetation followed by a characters, as well as other differences betwen quick return to foliage) in melanops, P. Glyciphila and Phylidonyris, indicates that they novaehollandiae and P. nigra has been cited as may not be each other's nearest relative; other supporting evidence of their relationships yellow-winged genera such as Trichodere may (Schodde 1975). Other varied species such as be closer to Phylidonyris. Once superficial mor­ the Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata, phological similarities are disregarded, there Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater Acanthagenys are no compelling characters to ally Glyciphila rufogularis, Noisy Friarbird Philemon cor­ more closely to one genus than to another, thus niculatus, White-plumed Honeyeater we consider it preferable to express the notion Meliphaga penicillata. and Brown Honeyeater by retaining it, despite being monotypic. When Lichmera indistincta also have displays of this further information, particularly anatomical general pattern (pers. obs.). The peculiar comparisons, become available, it may then display flight of melanops includes a slower prove preferable to merge these genera. Data at spiralling descent from the zenith of its rise. present, however, are inadequate to support Phylidonyris pyrrhoptera, a woodland species, such action. lacks this display (H.F. Recher, pers. comm.) A cursory examination of specimens of the but has a much stronger and more varied call extra-limital forms, undulata and notabilis, did than novaehollandiae and nigra and unlike not suggest any convincing reason to believe them, advertises its territory by song (D.C. that they are more closely related to Australian Paton, pers. comm.), We have not observed an Phylidonyris than to any of several other aerial display in P. albifrons but field data on honey-eater genera. M.D. Bruce (pers. comm.) this species are meagre. who has seen these two species in the field does not feel that they are particularly close to Maxillo-palatines Phylidonyris. A series of photographs in Han­ Mr S.A. Parker (pers. comm.), who is carry­ necart & Letocart (1980: 56-57) shows the nest, ing out a survey of the structure of the maxiIlo­ eggs, and adult and nestling plumages of un­ palatines in Australian passerines, has inform­ dulata; the nestling mouth colour is unmarked ed us that this feature differs between melanops yellow-orange. That these characters occur in SEPTEMBER,1985 223 notabilis should be tested as should the displays Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. Univ. of of both species. If separated generically, they Illinois Press: Urbana. Maclean, G.L. and C.J. Vernon. 1976. Mouthspots of would take the name Glycifohia Mathews 1929. passerine nestlings. Ostrich 47:95-98. Mees, G.F. 1961. An annotated catalogue of a collection of ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS birdskins from West Pilbara, Western Australia. J. Proc, We wish to thank Dr H.F. Recher, Dr D.C. Paton, Mr Roy. Soc. West. Aust. 44: 97-143. M.D. Bruce, Mr S.A. Parker, Mr T.R. Lindsey and Dr North, A.J. 1906. Nests and Eggs of Birds Found Breeding J.A. Keast for discussion on this problem. We are grateful in Australia and Tasmania, II. Spec. Cat. Aust. Mus. 1. to Mr Parker for providing us with his findings on the com­ Pizzey, G. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. parative structure of the maxillo-palatines and allowing us Sydney: Collins. to use them here. Reader's Digest. 1977. Complete Book of Australian Birds. Sydney: Reader's Digest Services Pty. Ltd. REFERENCES Salomonsen, F. 1967. Meliphagidae. In Paynter, R.A., Jr. (ed.). Check-list of Birds of the World, XII. Cambridge: Boles, W.E. and N.W. Longmore. 1985. Colours and Mus. cornp. Zool. markings of the mouths of nestling Australian songbirds. Schodde, R. 1975. Interim List of Australian Songbirds. S.Aust. Oro. 29: Passerines. Melbourne: RAOU. Campbell, A.J. 1900. Nests and Eggs of Australian Birds.