1887.] Correspondence. 8 1 



surprised that he, in the same paper, said, "This group [Cypselomorphae] 

 contains three very distinct families — the Trochilidic, the Cypselidce, 

 and the Caprimulgidctf' (p. 469). It is hard to say what Professor Huxley's 

 views in the premises would be now. as I am inclined to think he has in 

 no way modified them in print since 1867, and that is quite a long time 

 ago. 



For one, I do not place the reliance upon the structure of the bony 

 palate in birds as a taxonomic character that Huxley did then, and a number 

 of classifiers have done since. It rather dilutes its importance to find 

 such a bird as Cdprimiilgns curopcEus with its maxillo-palatines well 

 separated in the median line, while another Caprimulgine bird, as Chor- 

 deiles acutipennis texensis, for example, has these processes meet each 

 other for a considerable distance in this locality, where they may even in 

 old individuals fuse together (compare Huxley's figure of the former type 

 and mine of the latter). 



Some of the most interesting parts of Mr. Lucas's article are to be found 

 in the foot-notes. For instance, in one of these (p. 446) he says, "In Dr. 

 Shufeldt's figures of Panyptila and Tachycineta the maxillo-palatines are 

 imperfect." From a reading of the article, I am rather inclined to think 

 that Mr. Lucas, at the time he penned this opinion, had skeletons of neither 

 of these birds before him; indeed, I do not think there was a single alco- 

 holic of either of these forms in the Collection of the Smithsonian 

 Institution at the time, and there are just a few of these birds about me 

 here in New Mexico ! At any rate, these two figures are exactly double 

 the size of life; are based upon careful comparisons of abundant material 

 of the kind in question ; and are absolutely correct in every particular. 



Still keeping clear of some dubious anatomical deductions in my critic's 

 paper we find another foot-note at the bottom of page 447, wherein he says : 

 "Among birds the characters afforded by the sternum are so important 

 that I must confess myself a little surprised that Dr. Shufeldt should so 

 readily reject them." Let me say here, in explanation of this, that my 

 studies of the skeletons of the Auks shook my faith a little in the value 

 of the character of the xiphoidal extremity of the sternum, and the 

 'notching' it may assume. 



The Smithsonian Institution has had in its hands for two years now, for 

 publication, an extensive work of mine, treating largely of the osteology 

 of American birds, and illustrated by over 400 figures. When this work 

 appears Mr. Lucas will find that I describe two sterna there, from two 

 individuals of the same species of Auk, wherein one is extensively notched 

 on either side of its posterior end, while the other is absolutely entire, 

 and no evidence of a notch there at all. In the same place I have en- 

 deavored to show how this may come about, but no more of it here, for 

 I hope the volume I have just referred to will be published, and then my 

 views on this question will be better understood. As it stands now the 

 work has proved too extensive for the slender means of the National 

 Museum to handle at one effort. 



Of course, in recording what I have just done in the preceding para- 



