i8 ANATOMY 



A. Ambiens + 



a. Cseca + 



a. Aftersliaft + e.g. Gallinoe, Impennes, Phoenicopterus, 

 Musophaga, etc. 



j3. Aftershaft — e.g. Anseres, etc. 

 h. Cseca — 



a. Aftersliaft + e.gr. Accipitres, Psittaci partim. 



(3. Aftershaft — e.g. Columbae partim. 



B. Ambiens — 



a. Ceeca + 



a. Aftersliaft + e.g. Alca, Podicipes. 



/3. Aftersliaft — e.g. Striges. 

 6. Caeca — 



a. Aftershaft + e.^. Psittaci pt., Cypseli, Trochili, etc. 



(S. Aftershaft — e.g. Passeres, Columb£B pt., Herodii, etc. 



Thus the Owls in this arrangement approach nearest to the 

 Auks and Grebes, while the Parrots, owing to their variable 

 ambiens muscle, are grouped either with the Accipitres, or with the 

 Swifts and Humming-birds. This is obviously unsatisfactory, per- 

 haps owing to the value of the ambiens muscle being overrated. 

 Let us next use the aftershaft as the principal, the ambiens as the 

 secondary determining character, and the caeca as the third. Then 

 the Psittaci approach the Gallinaceous birds and also the Auks and 

 Grebes, while the Owls verge into the neighbourhood of Pigeons, 

 Herons, and Passerine birds. Again, by using the cseca as the prin- 

 cipal, and' the ambiens as the secondary feature, Psittaci, Accipitres, 

 and Columbse, Owls, Auks, and Grebes are once more thrown to- 

 gether. The same or very similar arrangements result from a 

 combination of the cseca "with the oil-gland, or of the ambiens and 

 cseca Avith the conditions of the palatal bones. But these per- 

 sistent coincidences will never induce us to look upon them as 

 indicating relationship between Owls, Auks, and Grebes, because 

 this conclusion would be obviously wrong ! How does the ques- 

 tion stand with regard to other combinations, when we cannot at 

 a glance discern a glaring error ? When, e.g. according to the 

 muscles of the thigh, leaving out the ambiens, Striges, Accipitres, 

 and Cypselidse stand closely together ? Is this a mere coincidence 

 or does a deeper meaning underlie this Trias ? It is ob^dously not 

 due to a superior taxonomic value of Garrod's myological formulse, 

 because application of the same principle throws Nightjars, Storks, 

 and Parrots together. 



It is hopeless to attempt to arrive at a natural classification of 

 Birds by a mechanical arrangement of even a great number of 

 alleged leading characters. More may be expected from the com- 

 bination of various taxonomic arrangements, each of which has 

 been based upon a single organic system without reference to other 



