J.OJ. Recoit Literature. \ July 



of some forms of fulmars, from the northern Atlantic and Pacific oceans. 

 .... We have other examples of dichromatism in the same j^roiip, as the 

 dark and \\hite Ibrnis of Ossi f ra^a ffii^'aittea ; and Mr. Ridjjfwav's siig- 

 i^estion that it \vill be found more [or less] e.xtensively all through the 

 superfaniily of Tubinares or Procellaroidea', is well worth consideration.' 

 As to other questions involved, their further discussion by me is unnec- 

 essary, and the valuable space which would tiuis be sacrificed can easily 

 be filled much more acceptably to th'" readers of "The Auk.' — Robert 



RiDGWAV.] 



Dr. Shufeldt on the Osteology of the Trochilidae. Caprimulgidae, and 

 Cypselidae.* — In the present paper, Dr. Shufeldt treats of three of the 

 most interesting families of iiirds. anatomically speaking. He gives very 

 detailed descriptions of the bones of Troc/i/liis ah-\a)i(tri. several Chorde- 

 dila-. and Phah^noptiln^ i/iitta/li, as well as Paiiyptila saxatilis. accom- 

 panied h\ finely executed plates, for which working anatomists who ha\e 

 no access to the forms mentioned, will be very thankfid. It can not be 

 our int^'ntion, in the present connection, to examine into the general cor- 

 rectness oi the descriptions, which may be taken fi^r granted until dis. 

 proved,- init we are obliged to say that Mr. Frederic A. Lucas, the 

 osteologist f)f the National Museum. Washington (who is also the original 

 source of the information contained in a note in 'Science,' i8S6, p. 572), 

 has called our attention to the fact that Dr. Shufeldt in describing and figur- 

 ing the forelimbs of Trochilu^, has transposetl the himieri of the two sides, 

 and described and figured the right humerus in place of the left one, 

 which seems (piite obvious from an insjiection of jil. Ixi. fig. 3/^ as com- 

 pared with the corresponding part of fig. 4. The gi-eat difierence which 

 Dr. Shufeldt found in tiieform of this bone in Micropodidce (zr: Cypselidiv) 

 and Trochilida- is thus easily accounted for and reduced to very little 

 indeed. 



But more interesting to ornithologists in general are his 'Conclusions' 

 which sum up the results of his comparisons of the three families. lie 

 fii>t confirms the correctness of the \iew held 1\\- a great many ornithol- 

 ogists and anatomists {ex. gr.^ \\ . K. Parker, Newton, Nitzsch, Garrod, 

 Forbes, etc.), that the Caprimulgi are not \er\- closels' related to the Cyp- 

 seli or Trochili, and should be remo\ed from the 'order' Macrochires. 

 It is vei\' interesting to remark that Nitzsch, in establishing this term, 

 only included therein Cyfsclus and Trocliihis. while Caprimidgiis^ and its 

 allies were kept in a group by tiiemsehes. It is not probable that the sep- 

 aration of the Goatsuckers from the other two groups will be seriously 

 challenged. Not so, however. Dr. Shufeldfs conclusion, that the relation- 

 ship of Cypseli and Trochili is equally remote, and that " with the excep- 

 tion of a few minor points in their organization, the Swifts are essentially 



* Contribution to the Comparative Osteology of the Trochiliite, Capriinulgidoe, and 

 Cypselidce. By R. W. Shiifclilt, M. 1). < Pr. Zoo). Soc. London, 1885, pp. 886-915 

 -(- pll. Iviii-Jxi. 



