392 Dr. J. Murie on the Motmots and their Affinities. 



nects the arch with the skull, and the median fore piece which 

 enters into the substance of the tongue"^. 



Having run through the skeletal peculiarities of this supposed 

 generically distinct Motmot, it devolves upon me to register the 

 assertion that these do not support the assumption. It becomes 

 a question, then, whether the anomaly of 10 tail-feathers, the 

 middle non-spatulate, is sufficient in itself to elevate the bird 

 to the rank of a genus ! — an opinion I certainly for one would 

 uot adopt f. 



IV. EuMOMOTA-suPERCiLiARis skeleton generally. 



The specimen of this genus at my disposal is one which was 

 presented by Mr. Osbert Salvin to the Museum of the College 

 of Surgeons in 1867. The bones have all been separated during 

 macei'atiou, which admits a good study of them individually. 

 The first glaring fact is that the skull and sternum, to general 

 appearance, are so like Momotus that there is a difficulty in con- 

 veying in words the distinctive shades of difference. When the 

 inequality of size is taken into account the points seem more 

 cogent. 



With regai'd to the breast-bone, its sternal plates, like those of 

 its confreres, are widish and shallow; but the clefts or xiphoid 

 spaces are larger and deeper — the pedate processes, however, all 



* The technical names of the different bones of the hj'oicl apparatus 

 above given are those in most general use amongst comparative anatomists. 

 But I must be just to my friend Mr. Parker, and mention that in his 

 valuable contribution on Gallus dotnesticus (Trans. Roy. Soc. 18G9) he 

 dissents from the older views as regards the homology and nomenclature 

 of the tongue-bones. 



t [We think Dr. Murie hardly puts this fuUy. Up to the present 

 point of the discussion the admissibility of the genus Barypthengus not 

 'only rests upon the characters of ten tail-feathers, the central ones being 

 non-spatulate, but those characters plus certain osteological ones Dr. 

 Murie has taken pains to point out, and plus certain others which we 

 think will be seen by comparing the maxillo-palatine bones in the two 

 figm'es of B. rnJicapiUus and M. lessoiii. 



For specific characters B. rt(ficapillus has no need to appeal to its 

 osseous structure ; and, viewing the Momotidse as a whole, there is no 

 difficulty in defining what may be called its generic characters. This is 

 more than can be said for perhaps one half of the genera of birds. — Ed.] 



