502 SHOUFELDT. VoErcrir, 
fauna, the representatives of the genera Troglodytes, Salpinctes, 
Campylorhynchus, and others, although many of these show, 
perhaps, a somewhat closer affinity with Cham@a than does 
Catherpes, but behind that fact it still remains clear that they are 
all WRENS in every sense of the word. Campylorhynchus, which 
by some has been supposed to be nearer Chamea, has a typical 
Wren’s skull, and one reminding us not very much of the Wren- 
Tit. 
One of the best cranial characters distinguishing these birds 
is to be found in the form assumed by the free mesial extremi- 
ties of the maxillo-palatines ; these differences I have already 
clearly defined above, and they are constant ; and furthermore, 
these parts are alike in Chamea and Psaltriparus, and differ 
from all the Wrens. The sternum offers us hardly a distinguish- 
ing character, but it would seem that the fact whether or no the 
ilia meet the sacral crista mesially should have its weight, and 
here Campylorhynchus is the only Wren that agrees with Chamea 
in that particular, whereas the Bush-Tits practically add this 
feature to the other list of characters that force us to believe 
them to be more nearly related to Chamea than any other species 
of bird at present known to our avifauna. 
As I have already stated, judging from topographical anatom- 
ical characters alone, I am strongly inclined to think that 
Chamea fasciata may be related to the Cinnicerthia unirufa, of 
Colombia, but I am also convinced that that latter species is 
not a whit nearer in its affinity to such a Wren as is Catherpfes 
m. conspersus, than is Chamea. 
Whether Ctunicerthia has any parine affinity, and just how 
much, is a question, I believe, that still remains for the mor- 
phologist to decide. 
