834 SHELD-DRAKE 
pointing also to a more distant relationship with the GULLS. 
These he afterwards described more fully (Voy. ‘ Bonite’ Zoolog. i. 
pt. 3, pp. 107-132, pl. 9), so as to leave no doubt that Chionis was 
a form intermediate between those groups. Yet some writers con- 
tinued to refer it to the Gallinv and others to the Columbe. The 
matter may now be regarded as settled for ever. In 1876 Dr. 
Reichenow in Germany (Jour. f. Orn. 1876, pp. 84-89) and in 
America Drs. Kidder and Coues (Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus. No. 3, pp. 
85-116) published elaborate accounts of the anatomy of C. minor, 
the first wholly confirming the view of De Blainville, the last two! 
agreeing with him in the main, but concluding that the Sheathbills 
formed a distinct group “ Chionomorphe,” in rank equal to the 
CECOMORPHA and CHARADRIOMORPH of Prof. Huxley, and re- 
garding this group as being “still nearer the common ancestral 
stock of both.” These authors also wish to separate the two 
species generically ; but their proposals are considered needless by 
Garrod (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1877, p. 417) and Prof. Milne-Edwards 
(Ann. Sc. Nat. ser. 6, xiii. art. 4, p. 24). The osteology of C. 
minor has further received the attention of Dr. Shufeldt (Journ. Anat. 
& Physiol. 1891, pp. 508-525, pls. xi. xii.) who has also (Auk, 
1893, pp. 158-165) reviewed the various opinions entertained as 
to the systematic position of this form. The views of De Blain- 
ville and Dr. Reichenow are borne out by the observations of Mr. 
Eaton (loc. cif.), and no one knowing the habits of an Oyster-catcher 
can read his remarks without seeing how nearly related the two 
forms are. Their differences may perhaps justify the separation 
of each form into what is vaguely called a “Family,” but the 
differences will be seen by the comparative anatomist to be of 
slight importance, and the intimate affinity of the Gavix and Limi- 
colx, already recognized by Prof. W. K. Parker as well as by 
some of the best taxonomers, is placed beyond dispute.” 
SHELD-DRAKE, or, as commonly spelt in its contracted form, 
SHELDRAKE, a word whose derivation® has been much discussed, 
1 In some details their memoir is unfortunately inaccurate. 
2 The little group of very curious birds, having no English name, of the 
genera Thinocorys and Attagis (PLOVER, p. 733), which are peculiar to certain 
localities in South America and its islands, are by some systematists placed in 
the Family Chionididz and by others in a distinct Family ‘‘Thinocoridx” (more 
correctly Thinocorythidx). They are undoubtedly Limicoline, though having 
much the aspect of Sand-Grouse, but their precise pcsition and rank remain at 
present uncertain (cf. Garrod wt supra, and Parker, Trans. Zool. Soc. x. pp. 
301 ef seqg.), though it is pretty clear that they are generalized and some- 
what ancient forms-—a fact which accords with their GroGRAPHICAL DISTRIBU- 
TION (p. 324). 
3 Ray in 1674 (Engl. Words, p. 76) gave it from the local ‘‘sheld” (= parti- 
coloured), which, applied to animals, as a horse or a cat, still survives in East 
Anglia. This opinion is not only suitable but is confirmed by the bird’s 
