1894. T^E WING OF ARCH^OPTERYX. 447 



and efficiently enough to determine the evolution of so perfect a 

 series of feathers, it is perfectly certain that the same selection will 

 have led also to the evolution of supports for those feathers as fully 

 fitted to support the feathers as the feathers are fitted for flight; and 

 even if there had been no indication of those supports on the slab, 

 we need have still had no doubt as to their existence." 



Professor A. Andreae has recently distributed among his friends 

 an outline restoration of Archaeopteryx, which I have had an oppor- 

 tunity of seeing. Since it is not published technically, I am debarred 

 from meting out to it the criticism that seems appropriate. Let it 

 suffice to draw attention to the fact that the metacarpals are too 

 short relatively to the length of the forearm, and that digit II. is too 

 short relatively to the length of the metacarpals, while digit III. is 

 too long by the same standard of measurement. This comparison, 

 of course, is made with the Berlin fossil, from which these digits have 

 been restored. The additional digits demanded by Hurst for sup- 

 porting the quills have also been added, for the sketch was, as I am 

 told, intended as a graphic interpretation of Hurst's paper. 



Yet another restoration is that of Koken (10). This is a very 

 interesting one, and is evidently founded upon Dames' hypothesis 

 that the quill feathers " arose, not only from the metacarpus, but also 

 from the phalanges of the middle of the three fingers, i.e., II. It can 

 be seen especially clearly on the left wing, if the quill of the first 

 feather be prolonged towards the hand, that it must have rested upon 

 the penultimate phalanx of the middle finger, close behind the claw." 

 I think, however, that if Professor Dames will examine this fossil 

 again, he will find that he ought to substitute the third for the middle 

 finger as the recipient of the first primary. 



According to Koken the wing of Archaeopteryx was still relatively 

 small, and as Figure 6 shows, he believes the III. digit not to have 

 been concerned in the support of the remiges, but to have been 

 entirely free and functional. These remiges, it will be seen, have 

 evidently been drawn without reference to their precise form and 

 length as seen on the slab. 



But for fear of becoming wearisome to my readers, I would fain 

 pass on to review briefly a few of the more striking theories as 

 to the manner in which flight has been acquired, having, of course, 

 especial reference to Archaeopteryx. I feel, however, that it 

 would be wiser to leave this matter for a future paper. This 

 course is the more advisable, since it is hardly possible to enter 

 upon a discussion of this nature without taking into consideration 

 the whole skeleton. Already I have found it difficult at times to 

 confine myself to the narrow limits of the title of the paper. In such 

 a discussion the reptilian affinities of Archaeopteryx, real and 

 imaginary, would necessarily take a large share, and this would 

 mean straying from the point at issue as well as doubling the length 

 of the article itself. 



