REPORT ON THE SPHENISCID^. 51 



avian anatomy, as Tiedemann, Cuvier, Meckel, Garrod, and others. Among these 

 various contributions to the subject, that of Schoepss, published in 1829, is remarkable 

 for accuracy of description of the muscles of the wing of Aptenodytes demersus, as 

 well as for the excellent figures which illustrate the essay. This essay being exclusively 

 devoted to the consideration of the arrangement and modifications of the muscles of the 

 wing, left much to be done by subsequent workers in the same field before a complete 

 account of the myology of the Penguins could be available to the comparative anatomist 

 intent on working out the aflSnities of the group, so far as a consideration of muscular 

 modifications might enable him to do so. 



In 1835, Eeid to some extent supplemented this deficiency by publishing the results 

 of an investigation into the anatomy of a specimen of Aptenodytes patachonica, Forst. 

 Eeid's description of these muscles is however so defective, and indeed in many points so 

 vague and unsatisfactory, that our knowledge of the anatomy of the group cannot be said 

 to have been materially advanced by his well-meant effort. The identification of the 

 muscles described by him is often impossible owing to the poverty of description, and 

 any attempt to synonymize his designations wdth those of other authors, is, for the 

 most part, productive only of failure. 



In 1877, MM. Gervais and Alix published an instructive and excellent monograph on 

 the osteology and myology of the Spheniscidse, based upon an examination of the anatomy 

 of Eudyptes ch7-ysolo2)hus. This monograph is frequently referred to in the following 

 pages ; and although in some parts, more especially in the account of the muscles of the 

 vertebral column, the brevity of description leads to difiiculty in the identification of the 

 muscles referred to, yet, as a whole, the essay may be said to contain an accurate and 

 able summary of the principal myological peculiarities of the single species to which it 

 refers. 



The collection of Penguins placed in my hands by Sir Wyville Thomson has afforded 

 an opportunity of again examining the muscular anatomy, not only of the species 

 described by the above-mentioned authors, but also of several others. 



In drawing up my description, I have omitted no ojiportunity of directing attention 

 to the observations of previous writers, and of comparing them with those made by myself. 

 By so doing I trust I shall be able to render this monograph more complete than would 

 otherwise be the case, being fortunately in a position not only to check the observations 

 of previous anatomists, but to extend them by the examination of several species which 

 have not hitherto been systematically dissected. 



As it happens, the description of the myology of one species may be said (taking into 

 account minor differences) to be that of all. I might therefore, to some extent, have 

 curtailed my essay by adopting the description of MM. Gervais and Alix of the myology 

 of Eudyp>tes chrysolophus as a standard with which to compare that of other species. 

 On the other hand, the difficulty which I have experienced in the identification of several 



