379 
some consequence to be cleared up, but about which I can say nothing 
myself, is whether the Baleniceps is gifted or not with those curious 
limited spots, clothed only with a peculiar sort of down (the “ Puder- 
dunenfluren”’ of Nitzsch), which characterize the Cancroma as well 
as the Herons, but are wanting in the Scopus and the Storks. 
If, on the other hand, we now compare the beak of the Baleniceps 
with that of the Scopus, we shall find a very remarkable accordance 
in nearly all material points. In both of them the nostrils are shaped 
exactly in the same way, being narrow, just perceptible slits. In Scopus 
as well as in Baleniceps the culmen is separated throughout its whole 
length from the sides of the bill by a deep narrow groove or furrow, 
and terminates in a powerful hook, though it is conceded that the 
hooked tip is proportionally not quite so large in the former. The 
very sharp carina into which the culmen is compressed in the Scopus, 
is indicated by a ridge along the broad culmen of the Baleniceps ; 
the apex of the lower jaw is truncated in the same way in both birds ; 
and notwithstanding the nearly perpendicular position of the sides of 
the bill in the Scopus, the tomia are convex and bend inwards, as in 
the Baleniceps. In a word, the minute detail of the bills of these 
two remarkable birds is, as far as I can see, very much the same ; 
and, indeed, if we fancy the beak of the Baleniceps so much com- 
pressed that the ridge along the culmen becomes converted into a 
sharp cutting edge, and the branches of the lower maxilla touch each 
other in the anterior half of their length, it will assume most exactly 
the shape of that of a gigantic, but somewhat short-billed Scopus. 
With regard to the feet, it is true that the toes are connected by 
a short interdigital membrane in the Scopus, while there is no ves- 
tige of it in the Baleniceps. The importance of this difference may 
perhaps be differently appreciated by zoologists, but I need not enter 
into a discussion as to its value; for, should the disappearance of 
the interdigital membrane be considered a serious obstacle against 
classing this bird with the Scopus, it must likewise divorce it from 
Cancroma, where such a membrane also exists, being only somewhat 
smaller than in the Scopus. For the rest, there is no material dif- 
ference in the structure of the feet of the two birds, the hind-toe 
even in the Scopus being inserted at the level of the other toes. It 
must, however, be confessed, that in this oft-mentioned bird also 
the middle nail is pectinated, though indeed not quite so regularly as 
in the Boatbill. This is certainly a remarkable deviation from the 
Baleniceps ; but it is obvious that this fact, at all events, cannot be 
adduced as an argument in favour of a nearer relationship to the 
Cancroma. 
In the ptilose of the Scopus seem to prevail nearly the same pecu- 
liarities which have been mentioned as distinguishing the plumage 
of the Baleniceps from that of the Boatbill ; and even in this respect 
it certainly proves a nearer relation than the last-mentioned American 
bird. With regard to the pterylose, the Scopus is known in a certain 
point to deviate from, I believe, all the other waders, the feathers 
on the neck being arranged in a manner quite peculiar ; should, 
therefore, the neck of the Baleniceps really prove to be feathered all 
