1SS7-] Correspondence. "3 S S 



'Science' (No. 235) to show me how it ought to be done. These figures 

 (Figs. 1 and 2, p. 71) Dr. Stejneger informs us are "both of one-third natural 

 size"; if this be so their author is laboring under the impression that 

 Colaptes auratns has a head nearly Jive inches long, and everything else 

 in proportion, to say nothing of the dimensions Amazona would attain 

 under the statement 'in question ! And, may I ask, how long since do we 

 see upon "dorsal view" of a dissected Colaptes, the tips of the shoulder 

 in close anatomical connection with the side of the middle of the neck* 

 (See his Fig. 1.) Turning to his "dorsal view" of a dissection of the 

 patagial muscles of a Parrot {loc. cil., Fig. 2), this latter error is again 

 repeated, but a far more glaring one here confronts us, for, among other 

 faults, Dr. Stejneger has plainly drawn and lettered his biceps muscle, 

 and would have us believe that it is inserted into the extensor metacarpi 

 radialis longus, between the tensor patagii brevis and the humerus. It 

 seems to me on an occasion of this kind, and where the opportunity pre- 

 sents itself to have two new figures added to anatomical science, it is 

 fortunate for us when they prove to be useful ones ; such is by no means 

 the case in the present instance, and the true aims and accomplishments 

 of criticism have herein failed in Dr. Stejneger's hands. Upon carefully 

 reconsidering my last letter to 'Science' upon this subject I am at loss to 

 find anything requiring any alteration, nor any adequate reason for 

 changing the name I have given the dermo-tensor patagii muscle; indeed, 

 in the latter instance, I am in full sympathy with Professor Eliott Coues. 

 who has recently, and in the most forcible manner ('N. Y. Med. Record'), 

 shown that the terminology of muscles requires a through reviewing, and 

 the day is with us when we ought, for the sheer sake of clearness and con- 

 venience, to lay aside some of the abominable names the old anatomists 

 bestowed upon some of them, and in some instances where the name was 

 five times as big as the muscle. 



From this standpoint I think Dr. Stejneger can consider the "pars pro- 

 patagialis musculi cucullaris" of Fiirbringer and Gadow as the dermo- 

 tensor patagii of the present writer. 



R. W. Shufeldt. 

 Fort Wingate, JVe.zu Mexico, 

 August 14, 1SS7. 



Postscript : — A description of the above muscle was published by the 

 writer in 'Science,' some little time ago (No. 234, July 29, '87), and it 

 called forth, it seemed to me, rather an acrimonious protest from Dr. 

 Leonhard Stejneger in the same journal. That writer so misrepresented 

 the entire matter, that I felt his criticism really required some notice 

 from me, and the above reply was sent to 'Science.' but much to my sur- 

 prise, the editor of that paper objected to my defending myself in its col- 

 umns against a criticism which he saw fit to publish. Will 'The Auk' 

 kindly do this matter justice for me, and insert the above rejoinder? 



By the first of next month (Oct. 1, 87) I trust to have out a paper cover- 

 ing a description of all the muscles thus far used in the classification of 

 birds, and in it will be given a full account of the present one. Even 



