iSSS.] Correspondence. 443 



My plate o the osteology of Otocoris, cited above also presents good 

 figures of the bones of the shoulder girdle, ».r\A when we come to compare 

 them among these smaller passerine types it is truly wonderful how well 

 they agree with each other. We have examined them in many species 

 representing a host of different genera, and yet who has been enabled to 

 base a single, coihtant. differential character upon the elements of this 

 arch? Slenderer here, a little shorter there, a somewhat longer and more 

 quadrilateral hypocleidium in this form than in that, still in all essential 

 particulars, coracoid, scapular, and o$ furcula in Piranga are the same as 

 we find them in Habia, or in Pipi'lo, or in Molot/iriis, Prague, I.aniits 

 (I have elsewhere figured it for this g&nu^). Me rulu, \u short a perfect 

 phalanx of other forms among our smaller Passeres. 



What I have just said in reference to the shoulder girdle applies with 

 etiual force and truth to the skeleton of the pectoral and felxnc limbs of 

 these birds, which parts have been likewise figured in my memoirs upon 

 Otocoris and La>iins. One may go carefidlv over, with lens in hand, for 

 hours, studying the limb bones of these particular genera of passerine 

 birds, and yet signally fail to select a reliable set of characters in any 

 genus that can be depended upon to distinguish it from another. Dift'er- 

 etices, of course, yes, constant difterences, t/o exist, but they are not of the 

 kind which can be powerfully brought into play by the taxonomist, who in 

 searching for difterential skeletal characters in these several groups must 

 relv almost entirely upon what he finds in the skull, the vertebral column, 

 and occasionally in the pelvis and sternum. Still, minor difterences, 

 which are sometimes presented, may, by the careful classifier, be mentally 

 added to the more salient distinguishing features, and thus be allowed 

 their weight in his final decisions, where they might not be of sufficient 

 importance to warrant a published description or special record. This 

 has been the writer's habit when dealing with such characters. To the 

 practised eye, and an unbiased and mature judgment, the general fades 

 presented by the skeleton of the wing or leg of a small passerine bird will 

 sometimes assist, and properly so, in one's t'orming a final opinion, when 

 these facts are being compared with similar parts in a different species. 

 and where affinities are being searched after. 



In conclusion, I woidd remark that having carefull\' gone over and 

 thoroughly studied and weighed the characters of the species now under 

 consideration, and many others not enumerated above, I am prepared to 

 sav that, in so tar as the skeletons seem to indicate, the following 

 deductions can be drawn. First. Habia melaiioccpliala possesses characters 

 in its skeleton not shared h\ \\\\\ other tVingilliiie bird knoun to me. out- 

 side the Grosbeaks, which characters are of family rather than generic 

 rank. Essentiall\' conirostral, and a seed-eater with a big beak, but 

 tor all that with an ossified nasal septum, with secondary palatine pro- 

 cesses, and a vomer generally fused xvith the surrounding bones, anteri- 

 orly, — all of which characters are disreputably unfinch-like, and entitle 

 their owner fully as much to family distinction as any set of skeletal' 

 characters we might array chosen from Sturnus does that form; and 

 how about Molotlirus and Dolichonyx ? 



