INTRODUCTION ol 
that among students of Ornithology has rarely been equalled and perhaps 
never surpassed. The present writer finds it difficult to treat of the 
labours of two pupils and friends, for while fully recognizing the brilliant 
nature of some of their researches, he is compelled very frequently to 
dissent from the conclusions at which they arrived, deeming them to 
have often been of a kind that, had their authors survived to a maturer 
age, they would have greatly modified. Still he well knows that learners 
are mostly wiser than their teachers ; and, making due allowance for the 
haste with which, from the exigencies of the post they successively held, 
their investigations had usually to be published, he believes that much of 
the highest value underlies even the crudest conjectures contained in their 
several contributions to Ornithology. Putting aside the monographical 
papers by which each of them followed the excellent example set by their 
predecessor in the office they filled—Dr. Murie!—and beginning with 
Garrod’s,? those having a more general scope, all published in the 
Zoological Society’s Proceedings, may be briefly considered. Starting 
from the level reached by Huxley, the first attempt made by the younger 
investigator was in 1873, “ On the value in Classification of a Peculiarity 
in the anterior margin of the Nasal Bones in certain Birds.” Herein he 
strove to prove that Birds ought to be divided into two Subclasses—one, 
called “ HoLoRHINAL,” in which a straight line drawn transversely across 
the hindmost points of the exfernal narial apertures passes in front of the 
posterior ends of the nasal processes of the preemaxille, and the other, 
called “ ScHIzoRHINAL,” in which such a line passes behind those processes. 
If this be used as a criterion, the validity of Huxley’s group Schizognathe 
is shaken ; but there is no need to enlarge upon the proposal, for it was 
virtually abandoned by its author within little more than a twelvemonth. 
The next subject in connexion with Systematic Ornithology to which 
Garrod applied himself was an investigation of the Carorrp Arteries, and 
here, in the same year, he made a considerable advance upon the labours 
of Nitzsch, as might well be expected, for the opportunities of the latter 
were very limited, and he was only able, as we have seen (page 55), to 
adduce four types of structure in them, while Garrod, with the superior 
advantages of his situation, raised the number to six. Nevertheless he 
remarks that their “disposition has not much significance among Birds, 
there being many Families in which, whilst the majority of the species 
have two, some have only one carotid.” The exceptional cases cited by 
him are quite sufficient to prove that the condition of this artery has 
nearly no value from the point of view of general classification (ef. pages 
76, 77). If relied upon it would split up the Families Bucerotide and 
1 Dr. Murie’s chief papers having a direct bearing on Systematic Ornithology 
are :—in the Zoological Society’s Transactions (vii. p. 465), ‘On the Dermal and 
Visceral Structures of the Kagu, Sun-Bittern and Boatbill’; in the same Society’s 
Proceedings—(1871, p. 647) ‘Additional Notice concerning the Powder-Downs of 
Rhinochetus jubatus’, (1872, p. 664) ‘On the Skeleton of Zodus with remarks as to 
its Allies’, (1879, p. 552) ‘On the Skeleton and Lineage of Fregilupus varius’ ; in 
The Ibis—(1872, p. 262) ‘On the genus Colius’, (1872, p. 383) ‘Motmots and their 
affinities’, (1873, p. 181) ‘Relationships of the Upupide.’ 
2 Garrod’s Scientific Papers were collected and published in a memorial volume 
edited by Forbes in 1881. There is therefore no need to give a list of them here. 
Forbes’s papers were similarly edited by Mr. Beddard in 1885. 
