98 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS 
contemporary Ratite type as surely testify to a more exalted position. 
The explanation of this complicated if not contradictory state of things 
seemed then out of reach; but one, as will directly be shewn, has since 
been offered by Prof. Fiirbringer. Moreover, the uncertainty which then 
prevailed, even if it has now wholly ceased, among the best-informed 
ornithologists as to the respective origin of Ratite and Carinatx, was at 
that time considered with a decided leaning to the view that the Jast 
were evolved from the first. The labours of the distinguished zoologist 
just named have now shewn the strong probability, if one may not say 
the certainty, of that view being wrong and of the Ratite being a degraded 
type descended from the Carinate.! Still further, it may here be remarked 
that there is now no need to presume (as was then presumed) the former 
existence of Ratit# with biconcave vertebra, since all Birds had most 
likely acquired saddle-shaped vertebrae before any forms began to retro- 
erade in the direction of Ratitx, while the ancestors of the modern 
Carinatzx possibly lost their teeth as their biconcave vertebre were 
improving into the higher form.? 
Seldom does it happen that in a professedly popular work any 
novelty is shewn unless it be of a kind essentially unscientific ; but the 
Fourth Volume of the Standard Natural History, which treats of Birds 
and was published at Boston in Massachusetts in 1885, is a notable 
exception. Even if some of its originality may be said to lie in its 
eclecticism,? no one will refuse Dr. Stejneger’s labour a conspicuous place 
in a historical sketch of Systematic Ornithology. Though not sole author 
of the book, indeed his name does not appear on the title-page, he has 
admittedly written most of the descriptive portion,* while there is no 
question of the taxonomy being all his own and its basis is anatomical. 
The whole volume compares most favourably with anything of the kind 
that has appeared, whether before or since, and open as it may be on 
many points to criticism,’ all who have used it must regret that it is not 
better known in this country. Here, however, we have but its Classifica- 
tion to deal with ; and, considering the many new ideas and terms put 
1 Tt now seems to me curious that, having then suggested (fom. cit. p. 44) that 
Apteryx and Dinornis were degraded descendants of earlier Ratit#, I did not perceive 
the possibility of those very Ratit# being degenerate forms. 
2 Prof. Marsh (Am. Journ. Sc. April 1879, and Odontornithes, pp. 180, 181) 
stated that in the third cervical vertebra of Ichthyornis “we catch nature in the act 
as it were” of modifying one form of vertebra into another, for this single vertebra in 
Ichthyornts is in vertical section ‘‘ moderately convex, while transversely it is strongly 
concave; thus presenting a near approach to the saddle-like articulation.” He pro- 
ceeded to point out that this specialized feature occurs at the first bend of the neck, 
and, greatly facilitating motion in a vertical plane, is “mainly due originally to its 
predominance.” The form of the vertebrae would accordingly seem to be as much 
correlated with the mobility of the neck as is the form of the sternum oa the 
faculty of flight. 
Ore Gaaew Thier-reich, Vogel, ii. p. 48. 
4 His fellow-workers were Messrs. Barrows and Elliot, the former taking the 
Accipitres, and the latter Opisthocomi, Gallinw, Pterocletes[!], Columbse and 
Trochilide, while Dr. J. 8. Kingsley, the editor of the whole series, supplied the 
account of the Psittaci. 
5 Especially on matters of Nomenclature, a trifling but Miehige contentious subject, 
which throughout the present work I have studiously tried to avoid. 
