NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 199 



taken upon the question whether any other characters separate the Tinamous 

 as widely from tlie Ka-'iores with which they were associated, as the latter are 

 separated from the birds of other orders ; or, in a wider sense, are the Tinamous 

 as different from all other Caritiatse as any Schizognathous bird, e. g. a plover, 

 gull or dove, is from any desmognathous bird, as a hawk, parrot or cuckoo? 

 If not, an inequivalency of value between the sub-orders is implied, without 

 any reference of course to their comparative extent. Aside from the fact ihat 

 the Tinamous have " a completely struthious palate," it would probably be 

 denied by none — not even by the author himself — that no characters can be 

 found whereby to separate Tmamus from other GaUinie as a group of higher 

 rank than a family ; and further, tliat its peculiarities are of that kind or grade 

 usuall}- held throughout the ornithological system to be of family consequence.* 

 But if Tinamus can sustain an order Dromieognaihie, the rest must follow. It 

 is a fair test, apparently, of the real value of the basis of the system. Seeing 

 that here the characters of the palate bones are at variance with all others, it 

 is next to be inquired how far they agree with the indications of natural 

 affinity, afforded in other instances by general characters. 



The schizognathous structure obtainsf in all Rasorcs (excl. Tinamus) in 

 Cohnnbx, in most Gralbn, and about half of Natatores. The desmognathous 

 prevails in other Natatores, in Herodiones of Grallce, in all Raptures, and 

 part of higher Insessores, (not necessary to particularize here,) tlie rest of 

 the latter being aegithognathous. If the palate characters are sure 

 indices of affinity, the two large groups of Grallee and Natatores must be 

 dismissed as unnatural, and their components rearranged in two other series, 

 in each of which occurs a serial relation of families usually held to be widely 

 separated, or, in some cases to represent nearly extremes of form. A cor- 

 morant or gannet comes next to the birds of prej', which only separate them 

 from parrots. A goose is nearer to an eagle than to a gull. A pigeon comes 

 nearer to a penguin or crane than to an insessorial bird. An albatross 

 is more nearly related to a peacock than to a pelican. These, it is true, are 

 among extreme instances ; but the extremes as well as the means are a part 

 of the system. In Schizognathce., a sequence of groups is Rallidse, Laridse 

 et aif., Spheniscidse., Rasorcs; in Desmognathm, a sequence is Herodionex, 

 Stega?iojwdes, Raptores. Discussion of these points is unneeded, as it would 

 be merely a rehearsing of the principles that have hitherto guided all orni- 

 thologists in framing classifications. Here, characters of every sort are made 

 subservient to one. The arrangement has the appearance — be it real or simu- 

 lated— of a cryptogram, to which an arbitrary standard is the only key. 



But ex parte statements do not do the subject justice ; views for as well as 

 against the system should be presented. Prof. Huxley considers Charadrio- 

 morpheeas a central group of Schizognaths, leading outward by three " distinct 

 series or gradations." In one of these, Oiididse lead from plovers to cranes, 

 and such genera as Psophia and R/unochwtus, thence to rails. In another, 

 Hemipodius is intermediate between plovers and GalUnie ; whence Syrrhaptes 

 leads to pigeons. A third series begins with the gulls, leads through petrels 

 to auks, and so to penguins ; " the osteological resemblances between a plover, 

 a gull," &c., " being so close that it is utterly out of the c^uestion to regard 

 these birds as members of different orders," (p. 455.) Conceding these series 

 and relationships to exist, without reservation, still another point is easily 

 raised. Passing from plovers to cranes and rails, in the manner indicated, 

 the general affinities of some of the latter lead quite as naturally to certain 

 Desraognaths, as herons and Totipalmates. I may instance Heliornithidce, 

 really ralloid, as Brandt has shown, if osteology' goes for any criterion, but 



* I hold Tinamus et aff. to be the expression of the gallinaceous process towards, or ten- 

 dency to inosculate with, Ratitse; i. e., a struthious phase of development or modification 

 of a strictly rasorial idea. 



flam indebted throughout to Prof. Huxley's paper for statements of facts respecting 

 palatal characters. 



1869.] 



