2IO NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM 



There are a number of points of interest to be observed in the 

 skeleton of the leg in a specimen of Centrocercus when it comes to 

 be about a month old. That part of the tibiotarsus which subse- 

 quently becomes in the adult the cnemial crest and pro- and ecto- 

 cnemial ridges, ossifies from a separate center ; and that separate 

 from the proximal epiphysis of the shaft. At the distal extremity 

 we make out a fibulare, tibiale, as well as an ossific center for the 

 intermedium. With respect to the tarsometatarsus, we also find the 

 summit of its shaft capped by an independent bony piece, which 

 probably represents the combined distal tarsalia. All these pieces 

 indistinguishably fuse with the long bones to which they belong as 

 the bird matures, and in old individuals every trace of their original 

 separateness is forever obliterated. In Pediocaetes (and I have also 

 seen the same in an embryo of Cinclus) the distal tarsalia or what 

 has also been termed the centrale includes the hypotarsus of the 

 tarsometatarsus, thus showing that that process probably belongs to 

 the tarsal elements. 



As yet I am unable to judge from the material at hand of the 

 number of ossific centers that enter into this development, but am 

 inclined to believe that the hypotarsus has at least one of its own, 

 and maybe more. 



From what has thus far been set forth in the present treatise, 

 including the figures, my reader can gain a very good idea of the 

 general plan of structure of the skeleton as it is found in our gal- 

 linaceous birds ; and how it differs from the skeleton in other groups 

 of birds. We are then in a position to take into consideration the 

 osteology of Meleagris — the turkeys. At the outset I will say 

 that Meleagris g . s i 1 v e s t r i s has a skeleton in which all 

 the gallinaceous characters of that part of the economy are substan- 

 tially repeated. Nevertheless it possesses characters peculiar to 

 itself, and these will be briefly enumerated below. From what has 

 gone before, they can now be readily understood. 



In treating of the skull of the wild turkey, I will depart some- 

 what from my usual methods of giving the characters of that part 

 of the skeleton, and will here substitute in its place a paper that I 

 published in July 1887, in The Journal of Comparative Medicine 

 and Surgery of New York, entitled " A Critical Comparison of a 

 Series of Skulls of the Wild and Domesticated Turkeys" (Melea- 

 gris gallopavo silvestris and M. domestica). 

 Very obvious advantages will be gained by this method of treatment, 

 for it introduces the element of direct comparison which invariably 

 brings out points that might otherwise be overlooked. Substantially, 



