REPOKT ON THE SPHENISCID^. 229 



tendency to the formation of a glandular zone, similar in form to that of 

 Spheniscus magellanicus. In Sphemscus magellanicus, moreover, the separate o-landules 

 are more distinctly isolated and more sparsely distributed on the right than on the left 

 wall of the stomach, and do not form a uniform belt, as they do, for instance, in Pygosceles. 

 I find therefore that, so far as the separation of Spheniscus magellanicus as a distinct 

 species from Spheniscus demersus is concerned, the form of the proventricular o-land does 

 not afford a specific characteristic, seeing that these two so-called species insensibly shade 

 into one another, and that while in one bird the glandular patch may be crescentic, in 

 another it is zonular in form. That these remarks regarding the variability in form of the 

 proventricular gland are applicable to species of genera other than Spheniscus, is shown 

 by the fact that while in three specimens of Aptenodytes longirostris the gland patch was 

 triangular in form, in the fourth it was completely zonular. 



Turning now to the length of the small intestine in Spheniscus demersus and 

 Spheniscus magellanicus, we find that in two specimens of Spheniscus demersus the small 

 intestine measures 24 feet 6 inches, and 20 feet 8 inches respectively, while in Spheniscus 

 magellanicus it measured in two specimens 30 feet 6 inches and 27 feet 5 inches 

 respectively. In the latter, therefore, the length of the gut relatively to that of the 

 vertebral column is greater than in the former, but the difierence between these birds in 

 this respect is not greater than that which obtains between undoubted varieties of other 

 species, for example, between the difierent varieties of Eudyptes chrysocome. The 

 examination, again, of the trachea of each of these biixls shows that they are not 

 specifically distinct. In Spheniscus demersus the septum tracheae is relatively longer 

 than in Spheniscus magellanicus, but the difierence in length relatively to the trachea 

 is much less pronounced in these two forms of Spheniscus than in difierent varieties 

 of Eudyptes chrysocome. Nay more, the difi'erence in length of the tracheal septum 

 of Spheniscus demersus, as compared with that of Spheniscus magellanicus, is less than 

 obtains between diff"erent individuals of even the same variety of Eudyptes chrysocome. 



Taking these various facts into consideration, I am compelled to conclude that inasmuch 

 as we look in vain for any distinctive features which are of specific value in the anatomy 

 of these two bii-ds, Spheniscus magellanicus and Spheniscus demersus must, in accord- 

 ance with the opinion of Coues, be regarded simply as two varieties of one and the same 

 species, for which the title of Spheniscus demersus should be retained. I would, more- 

 over, add that these two varieties of Spheniscus demersus seem to me to be much more 

 nearly related to one another than are the different varieties of Eudyptes chrysocome. 



I have unfortunately had no opportunity of examining a recent specimen of the so- 

 called Spheniscus humholdti.^ This was first described as a distinct species by Meyen,* 

 since which time it has been examined by Coues,^ who considers it to be identical with 



' Nova Acta Acad. Caes-Leo-Car., xvi. siipp. i. 110, pi. xxi. 

 2 Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Pliilad., 1872, p. 175. 



