52 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS 
employed before ; but now the scholar had learnt to excel his teacher, and 
not only to form an at least provisional arrangement of the various 
members of the Class, based on sternal characters, but to describe these 
characters at some length, and so give a reason for the faith that was in 
him. There is no evidence, so far as we can see, of his having been aware 
of Merrem’s views ; but like that anatomist he without hesitation divided 
the Class into two great “coupes,” to which he gave, however, no other 
names than “ Oiseaue Normaux” and “ Oiseauw Anomauax,”—exactly 
corresponding with his predecessor’s Carinatx and Ratite—and, moreover, 
he had a great advantage in founding these groups, since he had discovered, 
apparently from his own investigations, that the mode of ossification in each 
was distinct ; for hitherto the statement of there being five centres of 
ossification in every Bird’s sternum seems to have been accepted as a 
general truth, without contradiction, whereas in the Ostrich and the Rhea, 
at any rate, L’Herminier found that there were but two such primitive 
points,! and from analogy he judged that the same would be the case with 
the Cassowary and the Emeu, which, with the two forms mentioned 
above, made up the whole of the “ Oiseaux Anomaux” whose existence was 
then generally acknowledged.2 These are the forms which composed the 
Family previously termed Cursores by De Blainville ; but L’Herminier 
was able to distinguish no fewer than thirty-four Families of “ Oiseaux 
Normaue,” and the judgment with which their separation and definition 
were effected must be deemed on the whole to be most creditable to him, 
It is to be remarked, however, that the wealth of the Paris Museum, 
which he enjoyed to the full, placed him in a situation incomparably more 
favourable for arriving at results than that which was occupied by Merrem, 
to whom many of the most remarkable forms were inaccessible, while 
L’Herminier had at his disposal examples of nearly every type then 
discovered. But the latter used this privilege wisely and well—not, after 
the manner of De Blainville and others subsequent to him, relying solely 
or even chiefly on the character afforded by the posterior portion of the 
sternum, but taking also into consideration those of the anterior, as well 
as of the in some cases still more important characters presented by the 
presternal bones, such as the furcula, coracoids and scapule. L’Herminier 
thus separated the families of “ Normal Birds” :— 
1. “Accipitres”’—Accipitres, Linn. 10. “Couroucous””—Trogon, Linn. 
2. “Serpentaires” — Gypogeranus, | 11. “ Rolliers”—Galgulus, Brisson. 
Illiger. 12. “Guépiers’’?—Merops, Linn. 
3. “Chouettes ’—Strix, Linn. 13. “ Martins-Pécheurs ’—Alcedo, Linn. 
4. “Touracos’—Opaetus, Vieillot. 14. “Calaos””—Buceros, Linn. 
5. “ Perroquets ’—Psitéacus, Linn. 15. “Toucans””—Ramphastos, Linn. 
6. “Colibris””—Trochilus, Linn. 16. “Pies” —Picus, Linn. 
7. “Martinets””—Cypselus, Iliger. 17. “Epopsides ”»—Epopsides, Vieillot. 
8. “Engoulevents” — Caprimulgus, | 18. “ Passereaux ’’—Passeres, Linn. 
Linn. 19. “Pigeons ”—Colwmba, Linn. 
9. “Coucous "—Cuculus, Linn. 20. “Gallinacés ”— Gallinacea. 
1 This fact in the Ostrich appears to have been known already to Geoffroy St.- 
Hilaire from his own observation in Egypt, but does not seem to have been published 
by him. 
? Considerable doubts were at that time, as said elsewhere (Krtwz), entertained in 
Paris as to the existence of the Apteryzx. 
