112 . Recently published Ornithological Works. 



Zoology, Vol. VII. Part XVIII. Report on the Auatomy of the Sphe- 

 niscidae. By Prof. Morrison Watson, M.D., F.R.S.E.] 



Prof. Watson's exhaustive treatise on the anatomy of 

 the Penguins is based on specimens of eight species of this 

 group collected during the voyage of the * Challenger/ toge- 

 ther with additional specimens from other quarters. The 

 present Report relates only to the anatomy of the adult forms 

 of these species^ it being proposed to treat of the young and 

 embryonic forms in a second memoir. 



Taking the Eudyjites chrysocome of Tristan d'Acunha as a 

 standard of comjiarison, the author enters at full length into 

 the osteology, arthrology, myology, angeiology, neurology, 

 and splanchnology of these birds with a comjileteness of 

 detail which leaves little to be desired. He then proceeds to 

 speak of the subdivision of the Spheniscidse, and makes the 

 following remarks on the generic divisions in general use : — 



" The various species of Penguins which I have had an 

 opportunity of examining have been arranged by ornithlo- 

 gists, relying on the consideration of skins and feathers, into 

 five genera, namely, Aptenodytes, Pygosceles, Spheniscus, Eu- 

 dyptes, and Eudyptila. Such are the genera to be found in 

 Gray's ' Hand-list of the Genera and Species of Birds,' and, 

 with the exception of Eudyptila, in Sclater's Report on the 

 Birds collected by the ' Challenger.' The examination of the 

 complete anatomy of these birds appears to me, so far as the 

 species examined are concerned, to lead to the conclusion 

 that they ought all to be included within the limits of three 

 genera — Aptenodytes, Spheniscus, and Eudyptes. 



" In accordance with this view, the genus Aptenodytes 

 would include the two species longirostris and teeniatus. The 

 anatomy of these two birds, although presenting specific 

 differences, does not, as it seems to me, justify their separa- 

 tion as types of two distinct genera, seeing that in every 

 anatomical point which can be considered of generic value 

 Pygosceles and Aptenodytes entirely agree. This much may 

 certainly be said without fear of contradiction, that in re- 

 spect of their anatomy, Pygosceles and Aptenodytes diff'er 

 less from one another than do undoubtedly distinct species 



