122 Correspondence. [January 



saw the number of 'Science' containing them I immediately discovered the 

 lapsus, but I had sufficient confidence in the readers of that journal to 

 believe that not a single one of them could be deceived b}- it, and conse- 

 quently I deemed it unnecessary to formally correct such a trifling matter. 

 The original drawings were natural size, and on the paper I marked them 

 to be reduced to one third, hence, of course, the mistake. But I will here 

 emphasize that this is the second time that Dr. Shufeldt, in a controversy 

 with me in thisjournal, has taken advantage of an obvious error of this kind. 

 There are at least half a dozen other typographical errors in that paper of 

 mine, for my return proofs evidently did not reach the printer in time, 

 and it is only a matter of surprise to me that Dr. Shufeldt did not avail 

 himself of the opportunitj' to add another valuable page to his reply. 



His remark that I have represented the "tips of the shoulder in close 

 anatomical connection with the side of the middle of the neck" is too ridic- 

 ulous to be seriously meant. Or, has really Dr. Sluifeldt overlooked that 

 the mesial line is designated by a double line indicating the skin which is 

 left in position on the right side of the body, while the single line to the 

 extreme right represents the contour of the neck.'' Surel3\ Dr. Shufeldt 

 is right in the last paragraph of his letter in exclaiming "let us, gentle- 

 men, have intelligent drawings," but allow me to supplement it by pray- 

 ing : "Let us aTlso have intelligent readers !" 



I hardly know how to characterize Dr. Shufeldt's remark that I have 

 represented the biceps muscle as "inserted into the extetisor metacarfi 

 radialis longiisT etc. In view of this exti-aordinary statement I shall have 

 to modify my above prayer somewhat, and say : "let us have moderately 

 intelligent readers, at least!" or "Let us have readers who are willing to 

 open their eves!" Anybody with eyes and willing to see. will find upon 

 examining my fig. 2, that the muscular slip which "is inserted into the 

 e. m. r. L, between tlie tenso pafagii brevis and tlie humerus" is not 

 lettered b, but the muscle lying behind it and partly conceaied liv it! The 

 tendon to which Dr. Shufeldt refers is not lettered at all ! 



The above may be sufficient to laj' the dust. Aside from the considera- 

 tion that his criticisms of my drawings are unfounded, to say the least. 

 Dr. Shufeldt ought to have carefully avoided any allusion to unintelligent 

 drawings, — for he who lives in a glasshouse should not indulge in throw- 

 ing stones, according to an old adage, the soundness of which may be in- 

 disputable even in New Mexico, — as will be perfectly demonstrated by the 

 following interesting reflections. When Dr. Shufeldt made the figures to 

 accompany his firsi paper ('Science,' June 24, 1887, figs, on p. 624) he still 

 labored under the impression that Rhamfhastos was figured by Garrod as 

 the type of a passerine bird ("Garrod chose the wing of Rhampkastos 

 cuvieri to illustrate the arrangement of the patagial muscles in the 

 Passeres"). He copied this figure (fig. i) and accordinglv inscribed it 

 (".... left wing of a passerine bird, Rhatnphastos cuvieri" ....). 

 He then drew the arm muscles of a Swallow (fig. 2) to match, siiowing 

 his own discovery; but believing the Rhamphastos to be one of the Pas- 

 seres he fell into the — to an avian anatomist — most unpardonable blunder 



