R N I T H L O G Y 



19 



times more of them articulated to the anterior than to the 

 posterior, and in certain forms no ribs belonging to one, 

 all being applied to the other. Moreover, the author 

 goes on to remark that in adult birds trace of the origin 

 of the sternum from five centres of ossification is always 

 more or less indicated by sutures, and that, though these 

 sutures had been generally regarded as ridges for the 

 attachment of the sternal muscles, they indeed mark 

 the extreme points of the five primary bony pieces of the 

 sternum. 



In 1810 appeared at Heidelberg the first volume of 



Tie.le- Tiehemann's carefully-wrought Anatomii mid Natur- 



mann. geschichte der Vogel — which shews a remarkable advance 

 upon the work which Cuvier did in 180"), and in some 

 respects is superior to his later production of 1817. It is, 

 however, only noticed here on account of the numerous 

 references made to it by succeeding writers, for neither in 

 this nor in the author's second volume (not published until 

 1814) did he propound any systematic arrangement of 

 the Class. More germane to our present subject are the 

 jrapkische Beitrage our Naturgeschichte der Vogel of 



Nitzsch. Nitzsch, printed at Leipzig in 1811 — a miscellaneous set 

 of detached essays on some peculiarities of the skeleton or 

 portions of the skeleton of certain Birds — one of the most 

 remarkable of which is that on the component parts of the 

 foot (pp. 101-105) pointing out the aberration from the 

 ordinary structure exhibited by the Goatsucker (Capri 

 mulgus) and the Swift (Cypselus) — an aberration which, if 

 rightly understood, would have conveyed a warning to 

 those ornithological systematists who put their trust in 

 Birds' toes for characters on which to erect a classification, 

 that there was in them much more of importance, hidden 

 in the integument, than had hitherto been suspected; but 

 the warning was of little avail, if any, till many years had 

 elapsed. However, Nitzsch had not as yet seen his way 

 to proposing any methodical arrangement of the various 

 groups of Birds, and it was not until some eighteen months 

 later that a scheme of classification in the main anatomical 

 was attempted. 



Merrem. This scheme was the work of Blasitjs Merkem, who, 

 in a communication to the Academy of Sciences of Berlin 

 on the 10th December 1812, which was published in its 

 Abhandlungen for the following year (pp. 237-259), el 

 forth a Tentamen Systematic naturalis Avium, no less 

 modestly entitled than modestly executed. The attempt 

 of Merrem must be regarded as the virtual starting-point 

 of the latest efforts in Systematic Ornithology, and in that 

 view its proposals deserve to be stated at length. Without 

 pledging ourselves to the acceptance of all its details — some 

 of which, as is only natural, cannot be sustained with our 

 present knowledge, resulting from the information accumu- 

 lated by various investigators throughout more than 

 seventy years — it is certainly not too much to say that 

 Merrem's merits are almost incomparably superior to those 

 of any of his predecessors as well as to those of the majority 

 of his successors for a long time to come : while the neglect 

 of his treatise by many (perhaps it would not be erroneous 

 to say by most) of those who have since written on the 

 subject seems inexcusable save on the score of inadvert- 

 ence. Premising then that the chief characters assigned 

 by this ill-appreciated systematist to his several groups are 

 drawn from almost all parts of the structure of Birds, and 

 are supplemented by some others of their more prominent 

 peculiarities, we present the following abstract of his 

 scheme : : — 



1 The names of the genera are, he tells as, for the most part those 

 of Linnaeus, as being the best-known, though not the best. To some 

 of the Linnffian genera he dare not, however, assign a place, for instance, 

 / ; . ll.i natopus, Mcri'ji.% fibirenla (GuwliWa genus, by the bye), 



and Palartu •' a. 



I. A\ ES cAr.IN'AT.K. 



1. Aves aereae. 



A. Rapaces. — a. Accipitres — Vultur, Falco, Sagittarius. 



li. ,v 



B. Hymenopodes. — a. Chelidones: a. C. nocturna — Capri- 



mulgus; $. C. diurnae — Hirwndo. 

 b. Oscines: «. O. conirostres- Loxia,Frin- 

 Emberiza, Tangara; 8- 0. ten- 

 uirostres Alauda, Motacilla, M - '- 

 capa, '/'< U ■. La us, A tpelis, Tur- 

 dus, Parad u '. Bupliaga, Sturnus, 



Oriolus, •'• ■ 'e C das, Corvus, 



Pipra ', I' -. . s "■'.' ' ' ' .'<' ipr.eilam. 



C. Mellisugae. — Trochilus, Carthia el Upupae plurinue. 



D. Dendrocolaptse. — Picus, Yunx. 



E. Brevillngues. — a. Upupa; b. Ispidse. 



F. Levirostres. — a. Itamphastus, ScythropsV, b. Psiltacus. 



G. C'nee\". . . i • u cuius, Trogon, Bucco, Crotopha <j< < . 



2. Aves terrestres. 



A. Cnl a nihil. 



B. Gallinse. 



3. Aves aquaticae. 



A. Odontorhynchi : a. Boscades— Anas; b. Mergus; c. Phceni- 



copterus. 



B. Platyrhynchi. — Pelicanus, Phaeton, Plolus. 



C. Apte ami >jtis. 



D. Drinatrices : a. Cepphi — Alca, Colymbi pedibua palmatis; 



b. Podiceps, Colymbi pedibus lobatis. 



E. Steiiorliynelii. — Procellaria, Diomedea, Larus, St 



Rhyncliops. 



4. Aves palustres. 



A. Rustieole : a. Phalarides — Rallus, Fulica, Parra; b. 



Limosuga — Nwmemvs, Scolopasc, Tringa, Chat 

 Recurvirostra. 



B. Grallaj : a. Erodii — Ardeas ungue intermedio serrato, 



Cancroma; b. Pelargi — Ciconia, Mycteria, Tantali qiridam, 

 Scopus, Platalea; c. Gerani — Ardess cristatre. Gfrues, 

 Psophia. 



C. Otis. 



II. Aves eatit.e. — Struthio. 



The most novel feature, and one the importance of 

 which most ornithologists of the present day are fully pre- 

 pared to admit, is of course the separation of the (.'lass 

 A vt s into two great Divisions, which from one of the most 

 obvious distinctions they present were called by its author 

 C'lrimikv- and Ratitse, 3 according as the sternum possesses 

 a keel (crista in the phraseology of many anatomists) or 

 not. But Merrem, who subsequently communicated to 

 the Academy of Berlin a more detailed memoir on the 

 "flat-breasted" Birds, 4 was careful not here to rest his 

 Divisions on the presence or absence of their sternal 

 character alone. He concisely cites (p. 2.38) no fewer than 

 eight other characters of more or less value as peculiar to 

 the Carinate 1 livision, the first of which is that the feathers 

 have their barbs furnished with hooks, in consequence of 

 which the barbs, including those of the wing-quills, cling 

 closely together ; while among the rest may be mentioned 

 the position of the fureula and coracoids, 5 which keep the 

 wing-bones apart; the limitation of the number of the 

 lumbar vertebra to fifteen, and of the carpals to two; as 

 well as the divergent direction of the iliac bones,^ — the 

 corresponding characters peculiar to the Batite Division 

 being (p. 259) the disconnected condition of the barbs of 

 the feathers, through the absence of any hooks whereby they 

 might cohere; the non-existence of the fureula, and the 

 coalescence of the coracoids with the scapula; (or, as he 

 expressed it, the extension of the scapulas to supply the 

 place of the coracoids, which he thought were wanting); 

 the lumbar vertebrae being twenty and the carpals three in 

 number; and the parallelism of the iliac bones. 



- From carina, a keel. 



3 From rates, a raft or flat-bottomed barge. 



4 " BesehreibungderGerippes eines Casuars nebst einigen beilanfigen 



Bi rkungen iiber die flachbriistigen Vogel" — Abhamll. rice Berlin. 



Akademie, Phys. Elasse, 1817, pp. 179-198, tabb. i.-iii. 



Merrem, as did many others in Ids time, calls the coracoids u elnei- 

 enhr"; but it is new well understood that in Birds the real claviculm 

 form the fureula or " merry-thought." 



