Prof. Reiiihardt's Remarks on the Genus Balseniceps. 161 



imagines the bill of the latter to be so much squeezed together 

 as to be metamorphosed into a cutting edge, and the branches of 

 the under mandible towards the point to be tightly compressed, 

 it would exactly resemble a gigantic but rather short Scopus- 

 like bill. 



One cannot so certainly conclude from the form of the foot, as 

 from the bill, to whicli of the two birds named, Balceniceps most 

 approaches ; Scopus and Cancroma differing, with regard to their 

 feet, but slightly from each other ; and the most essential charac- 

 ters, therefore, in this respect, which distinguish Balceniceps from 

 the one, must also separate it from the other. Each of these two . 

 birds has a long hind toe, inserted on a level with the fore toes, 

 which, when the bird walks, touches the ground for its whole 

 length. In both, the fore toes are united at the base by a mem- 

 brane. The difference between their feet exists principally in the 

 membrane of Scopus being somewhat larger than that of Can- 

 croma, while, on the other hand, the hind toe of the last is a 

 little longer. In Balceniceps the foot is mainly constructed after 

 the same type, but every vestige of a membrane between the 

 fore toes is wanting ; and these, as well as the back toe, may 

 be even a little longer than in Cancroma. So far, its form of 

 foot may perhaps be said to stand nearer to the latter than to 

 Scopus ; a great difference, however, prevails in a point not less 

 important. In Cano'oma, as in all Herons, the middle claw is 

 pectinated along its entire inner edge ; in Balceniceps there is no 

 trace of such a structure ; while Scopus in this respect forms a 

 connecting link, the claw being certainly serrated though only 

 for a portion towards the tip, and the pectinations being neither 

 fine nor particularly regular. If one now considers that such a 

 pectinated middle claw is undoubtedly to be found elsewhere than 

 in the Heron family, but in that family is otherwise never want- 

 ing *, its absence in Balceniceps really seems to imply a strong 

 warning against gi.ving this bird a place at the side of Cancroma, 



* To this rule only the genus Eurypyga would afford an exception, if 

 indeed it can with justice be referred to the Herons. But, in the author's 

 opinion, this genus is most rightly comprehended when it is placed in the 

 neighbourhood of the Water-hens, as has formerly been done by Buffon, 

 and as at the present time Des Murs and Olph-Galliard arrange it. 

 VOL. IV. M 



