NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 197 



Proc. puffimis, p. 23, Not of Linn. Gm. Lath. Some large Southern Puffinus 

 possibly the true P. major, Fab. 



Proc. glaicalis, p. 25. Not of L. Gm. Lath. ; but the Thalassoica glacialoides 

 (Smith) Reich. 



rroc. nigra, p. 26, = vequinoctialis L. 



Proc. nivea, p. 58. 



Proc. similis, p. 59. = JTalobsena ccerulea, Bp. ex Gm. 



Proc. antarctiea, pp. 60 and 202. 



Proc. gavia, p. 148. Not subsequently identified with any known species. By 

 Gray regarded as a valid species ; and so given in these papers. 



Proc. tridactyla, p. 149. == Pelecanoides urinatriz Lacep. ex Gm. 



Proc. fregata, p. 180. The grallaria of Lichtenstein ; not of Vieillot. Probably 

 the species subsequently named me.lanogaster by Gould. 



Proc. inexpectata, p. 204. A somewhat doubtful species, coming nearest to 

 mollis Gould, with which I have identified it. 



Proc. tristis, p. 205. (" Pr. fuliginosa, rostro fusco, pedibus antice' glaucis ; 

 111 X 38; bill 2; its width i; its depth f.") A southern fuliginous 

 Puffimis, not identified with any known species. Mr. G. R. Gray (Ibis, 

 1862, p. 244) considers it as a valid species, and assigns the following 

 synonymy : Proc. grisea Forst. ic. ined. 94 ; (nee Gm.) Puff, major, Gray, 

 Ereb. and Terr, (nee Fab.) P. fuliainosus Homb. and Jacq. Voy. Pole. 

 Sud. tab. 32, fig. 7. (nee Strickl.) Puf. cinereus A. Smith, 111. S. Afr. 

 Bds. (nee Gm. nee Auct.) Nectris gama, Bonap. 



Proc. hucocephala, p. 206. = Proc. Lessonii Garn. (JEstrelata Lessoni Cass.) 



Proc. hasitata, p. 208. = P. cinereus, Gm. Lath. Vieill. Lawr. = Adamastor 

 typus Bp. = Adam, ciner. or Priojinus ciner. Coues. = Proc. Adamastor 

 Schlegel. etc. etc. The hpesitata of Gould and Reichenbach, but not of 

 Kuhl and Temminck, which is an JEstrelata. 



Proc. ossifraga, p. 343. = gigantea Gm. 



In bringing to a close the present series of papers, the author is deeply 

 sensible of their many defects ; and can only crave for them a lenient judg- 

 ment in view of the very difficult nature of the task he attempted, and has 

 throughout conducted, with the sole desire of elucidating truth. Should the 

 undertaking prove a failure, and the meagre results incommensurate with 



the time and labor bestowed, at least it may be said of him, ' si non 



tenuit, magnis tamen excidit ausis." 



Observations upon the Cranial Forms of the American Aborigines, based npon 



Specimens contained in the Collection of the Academy of Natural 



Sciences of Philadelphia. 



BY J. AITKEN MEIGS, M. D. 



The early record of every science abounds in crude facts, imperfect obser- 

 vations, and, consequently, in generalizations so hastily formed as to partake 

 more of the character of mere speculation than of strictly logical deduction. 

 These erroneous statements and premature generalizations are at first gene- 

 rally accepted as scientific truths. A few cautious observers, it is true, may 

 withhold from them their assent, but their opinions find no support beyond 

 themselves, until these facts and hypotheses come in conflict with others bet- 

 ter known and better established, or, are employed in developing still higher 

 and more comprehensive theories. Then, for the first time, they are subjected 

 to a rigid investigation, and their true value, at length, ascertained. Nowhere 

 can we find a more instructive example of this assertion than in the doctrine 

 which ascribes to the American aborigines a homogeneous cranial type. 

 For the philosophical ethnologist this doctrine is full of interest. If the 



1866.] 



