d52 Correspondence. LJuly 



Journal Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., XXII, No. 1, April, 1916. 



Messager Ornithologique, VII, Nos. 1 and 2. 



New Jersey Audubon Bulletin, No. 13, May 1, 1916. 



Oologist, The, XXXIII, Nos. 3 and 4, March and April, 1916. 



Opinions Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological 

 Nomenclature. Opinion 67. Smithson. Inst. Publ. 2409, April, 1916. 



Ottawa Naturalist, The, XXIX, Nos. 11 and 12, XXX, No. 1, February- 

 April, 1916. 



Proceedings Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, LXVIII, Fart II, A])ril, 1916. 



Records of the Australian Mu.seum, XI, No. 1, February 21, 1916. 



Revue Frangaise d'Ornithologie, VIII, Nos. S3, 84 and S5, March-May, 

 1916. 



Science, N. S., XLIII, Nos. 1108-1118. 



Summary Report, Geol. Sdrvey [Canada] Dept. of Mines, 1915. Ot- 

 tawa, 1916, pp. 1-307. 



Scottish Naturalist, The, Nos. 51, 52 and 53, March-May, 1916. 



South Australian Ornithologist, The, II, Part 6, April, 1916. 



U. S. Depart. Agr. Proposed Regulations for the Protection of Mi- 

 gratory Birds, pp. 4, May 20, 1916. 



Zoologica, I, No. 17-18, September, 1914. 



Zoologist, The, XX, Nos. 231, 232 and 233, March-May, 1916. 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



The Significance of the Osteological Characters of the Chionides. 



Editor of 'The Auk,' 

 Dear iSir: — • 



My attention has been called to the very excellent and comjirchensive 

 article by Dr. Percy R. Lowe on "Studies on the Charadriiformes. — III. 

 Notes in Relation to the Systematic Position of the Sheath-bills (Chioni- 

 didaj)," which appeared in 'The Ibis' of last January (1916); I have also 

 read 'The Auk's' comments thereon and citation therefrom (April, 1916, 

 p. 220). 



Since reading Doctor Lowe's article, I have gone over the osteological 

 material representing the Sheath-bills in the collection of the United States 

 National Museum, and compared the skull and other bones of several of 

 these birds with the corresponding parts of the skeleton in the fowls, 

 pigeons, plovers, oyster-catchers, and their allies near and remote. So far 

 as I am personally concerned, I find little or nothing in the strictures made 

 by Doctor Lowe in his g,bove cited contribution, reproduced in the last 



