108 Correspondence. [jj[^_ 



[Both Mr. Saunders and Mr. Moore seem agreed that some sort of 

 ' graphic ' representation of bird song is preferable to the syllabic method. 

 Choice between their methods is largely a matter of personal opinion and 

 both having been exploited at considerable length it seems hardly desirable 

 to continue the discussion further in these columns. A note by Mr. 

 Summers in General Notes, p. 78, antea, as well as Mr. Oldys' paper, p. 

 17, deal further with this subject. Ed.]. 



On the Position of the Aramidae in the System. 



Editor of 'The Auk.' 

 Dear Sir: — 



Your very interesting notice of my two recent osteological papers, which 

 appeared in 'The Auk' for October, 1915 (pp. 517, 518), seems, in one 

 instance at least, to demand a few words from me by way of defence. 



Dr. Mitchell's conclusions are only known to me through my having 

 seen the notice of his paper in the 'Abstract of the P. Z. S.' of May 25, 

 1915, p. 34. There I read that he read, as Secretary of the Society, "a 

 communication on the Anatomy of the Gruiform birds, Aramus giganteus 

 Bonap., and Rhinochetus kagu, in which he showed that A. giganteus 

 resembled A . scolopaceus very closely in the details of its muscular and bony 

 anatomy, and that the genus Aramus, in these respects, was very close to 

 the true Cranes." 



That the two species of Aramus are very much aUke in their morphology 

 will, of course, not be questioned; but that these birds are "very close to 

 the true Cranes" structurally, is a statement which I contend cannot be 

 sustained, nor does the anatomy of the several forms demonstrate it. In a 

 paper I published as long ago as 1894 (Jour. Anat. and Phys. London, 

 Oct., Vol. 29, n. s.. Vol. 9, pt. I, art. 5, pp. 21-34, text figures), I care- 

 fully contrasted, in three parallel columns, the essential osteological char- 

 acters of Rallus longirostris, Aramus vociferus, and Grus americanus; and 

 this comparison demonstrated the fact that Aramus had more rail char- 

 acters in its skeleton than gruine ones. My subsequent publications on 

 the subject practically sustained this opinion. Finally, the paper of mine, 

 which you kindly noticed in 'The Auk,' is entitled "On the Comparative 

 Osteology of the Limpkin (Aramus vociferus) and its Place in the System," 

 a contribution to the subject which recently appeared in 'The Anatomical 

 Record' (Vol. 9, No. 8, Aug. 20, 1915, pp. 591-606, figs. 1-14). In this 

 paper I thought I showed very clearly that, osteologically, the Aramidce 

 were nearer the Rallidce than they were to the Gruidce. Other anatomists 

 have arrived at the same conclusion. But to discuss all of these opinions 

 would occupy far more space than necessary in the present connection; 

 so I shall confine myself to what one of the most painstaking and able 

 avian anatomists had to say on the subject. I refer to the splendid work 

 of William Macgillivray, who prepared all the bird dissections of American 

 birds for Audubon's great work on "Birds of America." Macgilhvray 



