INTRODUCTION 85 
to have been acquired by the bones of the palate through the fact that so 
great a master of the art of exposition selected them as fitting examples 
upon which to exercise his skill! At the same time it must be stated 
this selection was not premeditated by him, but forced itself upon him as 
his investigations proceeded.2 In reply to some critical remarks (Ibis, 
1868, pp. 85-96), chiefly aimed at shewing the inexpediency of relying 
solely on one set of characters, especially when those afforded by the 
palatal bones were not, even within the limits of Families, wholly 
diagnostic, the author (Jbis, 1868, pp. 357-362) announced a slight 
modification of his original scheme, by introducing three more groups 
into it, and concluded by indicating how its bearings upon the great 
question of “Genetic Classification” might be represented so far as the 
different groups of Carinatzx are concerned :— 
Tinamomorphe. 
Turnicomorphe. 
| 
=e | 
Charadriomorphe. Alectoromorphe. 
ie ee aes Pteroclomorphe. Palamedea. 
Spheniscomorphe. Aetomorphe. Peristeromorphe Gascon 
: Heteromorphe. Amphimorphe. 
: : Pelargomorphe. 
Psittacomorphe. As .Coceygomorphe. $8 . Zgithognathe. Dysporomorphe. 
The above scheme, in Huxley’s opinion, nearly represents the affinities of 
the various carinate groups,—the great difficulty being to determine the 
relations to the rest of the Coccygomorphx, Psittacomorphx and A2githognathe, 
which he indicated “only in the most doubtful and hypothetic fashion.” 
Almost simultaneously with this he expounded more particularly (Proc. 
Zool. Soc. 1868, pp. 294-319) the groups of which he believed the 
Alectoromorphe to be composed and the relations to them of some outlying 
forms usually regarded as Gallinaceous, the Turnicide (Hemipopr) and 
Pteroclide (SAND-GRoUSE), as well as the singular Hoacrzin, for all three 
of which he had to institute new groups—the last forming the sole repre- 
sentative of his HeTrERoMORPH#. More than this, he entered upon their 
Geographical Distribution, the facts of which important subject were, 
1 The notion of the superiority of the palatal bones to all others for purposes 
of classification has pleased many persons, from the fact that these bones are not 
unfrequently retained in the dried skins of Birds sent home by collectors in foreign 
countries, and are therefore available for study, while such bones as the sternum and 
pelvis are rarely preserved. The common practice of ordinary collectors, until at 
least very recently, has been tersely described as being to “shoot a bird, take off its 
skin and throw away its characters.” 
2 Perhaps this may be partially explained by the fact that the Museum of the 
College of Surgeons, in which these investigations were chiefly carried on, like most 
other museums, contained a much larger series of the heads of Birds than of their 
entire skeletons or of any other portion of the skeleton. Consequently the materials 
available for the comparison of different forms consisted in great part of heads only. 
