Correspondence. [January 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



^Correspondents are requested to write briefly and to the point. No attention will 

 be paid to anonymous communications.'] 



Propatagialis cucullaris. 



To THE Editors of The Auk :— 



Dear Sirs: — V\^.\-ing g\ye.Vi space in 'The Auk' to Dr. Shuteldt's re- 

 joinder to an article of mine in another publication, which probablj' few 

 of the readers of 'The Auk' have had the opportunity to familiarize them- 

 selves with, will you kindly allow me to say a few words in my defense, 

 the more so, as Dr. Shufeldt has told this new class of readers that 

 my first paper was "a rather acrimonious protest" in which I "so 

 misrepresented the entire matter," etc. I regret very much that the 

 editor of 'Science' did not think Dr. Shufeldt's reply fit for publication, 

 since, had it appeared in that journal, I should have saved myself the 

 trouble of answering his irrelevant rejoinders and countei--criticisms. The 

 readers of 'Science' who knew the previous articles would also know how 

 to correctly place his reply, and would be competent judges whether 

 I had '-misrepresented the whole matter" or not. It is also characteristic 

 that Dr. Shufeldt did not makf this accusation in the reply intended for 

 •Science.' but in the part prepared for 'The Auk' only. To this accusation 

 I can onl}' say, read the original articles and judge! In every instance I 

 quoted Dr. Shufeldt verbatim. Besides there was no room for misrep- 

 resentation. 



The whole sum and substance of the controversy is this : In 'Science' 

 for June 24, 1887, Dr. Shufeldt announced what he took to be the discov- 

 ery of an unknown muscle in the bird's wing, which bethought without a 

 name, and which he therefore named dertno-iensor patagii,^\\&ging that it 

 had a special taxonomic value. My article in 'Science' for August 5, 1887, 

 demonstrated that Dr. Shufeldt was entirely wrong in all his supposi- 

 tions. I proved that this muscle was not confined to the Passeres 

 acromyodi, but that it is equally well developed in Parrots and Wood- 

 peckers; I proved that the muscle, so far from being unknown and 

 unnamed, was well known in literature, and had not one but many 

 names; and I proved that Dr. Shufeldt's allegation that the late Professor 

 Garrod in particular was ignorant of the existence of this muscle, was 

 equally unfounded. 



I did not blame Dr. Shufeldt for not knowing these things, and, surely, 

 I did not exhibit any "acrimony." I did not feel any then, and I do not 

 feel any now. I only stated scientific facts, killed a false notion at its 

 birth, and assigned 'denno-tensor patagii' to the limbo of synonyms. 

 That was my entire crime ! 



I repeat, I did not blame Dr. Shufeldt for not knowing the literature 



