631 On the Bird- Cures of the Bermudas. 



It will be noted from what I say in my still uupublislied 

 memoir, so often referred to above, and which was long ago 

 read at a regular meeting of the New York Zoological 

 Society, that I was the first to demonstrate, through the 

 assistance of abundant material, that the famous " Cahow " 

 of literature was a Petrel {^strelata) and not a Shearwater 

 (the '■' Puffinus obscurus" of ornithological and popular 

 literature). 



In order to establish this species here, it will be necessary 

 to quote the following few paragraphs from my mem lir, 

 to wit : ''It has long been a question among ornithologists 

 as to whether the famous ' Cahow ' was a Shearwater 

 {' Puffiims ubscurus^ ?) or a Petrel [JEstrelata). In so far 

 as my observation carries me, there is at least one character 

 in the skeleton by means of which we can, with certainty, 

 distinguish from each other these two different kinds of 

 birds. This character is seen in the form of the cneinlal 

 process of the tibiotarsus. In the genus Puffiaus — and 

 possibly in some of its near allies — the cnemial process of 

 the tibiotarsus is conspicuously elongate, as we see it iti the 

 Grebes and Loons ; while in the Petrels it is notably shorter, 

 with rounded superior margin. These differences are well 

 shown in the bones figured on pi. xii. (figs. 116-125 in- 

 clusive). Judging from this character, too, such forms as 

 Pelecanoides urinatrix and Procellaria cooki are more closely 

 related to the Petrels than to the Shearwaters of the genus 

 Pafinus (see pi. iv. fig. 20, and pi. v. fig. 24). Judging 

 from this character alone, there is no question but that the 

 ' Cahow ' of the Bermuda Islands was an jEstrelata and 

 not a Puffinus. This fact is sustained by other osteological 

 as well as external characters found in the representatives 

 of the two genera in question. For example, both the 

 horny sheaths to the mandible, as well as those parts in 

 the dried skulls wiien deprived of the sheaths, are positively 

 diagnostic with respect to these two groups of tubiuarine 

 birds. The differences in the external forms of the beaks 

 are well shown in figs. 128-130 of pi. xvi. of my quoted 



