proposed Classification of Birds. 91 



as this. Those who disagree with Prof. Huxley most, of whom 

 I am certainly not one, will hardly think the first of these 

 opprobrious epithets applicable to anything he writes ; and after 

 what I have above said I cannot be supposed to imply that the 

 last is. Still, on broad grounds, I believe Dr. Hartlaub is in 

 the main right, and that, as I expressed myself in the discussion 

 which took place after the reading of Prof. Huxley's Paper, a 

 really natural arrangement can only be made out by taking an 

 aggregate of cliaracters. It is, of course, very easy to object 

 that it is difficult to obtain such an aggregate of characters ; but 

 to this I would reply that, if it were not so by the nature of the 

 case, the desired arrangement would undoubtedly have long 

 since been discovered. 



But having thus declared my general belief on the subject, 

 1 should like to consider more specially the application of Prof. 

 Huxley's principles. The distinctive characters of the Ratitte 

 and Carinatce, as given by him, are obviously divisible into two 

 categories — those which are absolutely peculiar to their respec- 

 tive Orders, and those which are not. Now those which are not 

 peculiar are, of course, decidedly inferior to the others in value : 

 they are, indeed, characters which are not diagnostic, and can 

 only in a resti-icted sense of the word be termed " characters " at 

 all. What then are these doubtful " characters " ? Why, the 

 very ones drawn from the structure of the bones of the palate. 

 Prof. Huxley himself most candidly admits this. " The Dromseo- 

 gnathous birds are represented by the single genus Tinamus, 

 which (as Mr. Parker has shown) has a completely struthious 

 palate ; " or, to pass from general to special observations, we 

 read of the Ratitce : — " The upper, or proximal, articular head 

 of the quadrate bone is not divided into two distinct facets," 

 which, of course, is perfectly true ; but then, further on, of this 

 same Tinamus we have, " The head of the quadrate bone is 

 single, as in the Struthious birds." Therefore the single-headed- 

 ness of the quadrate is not a distinctive character of the Ratita ; 

 ami, indeed, it seems to me very doubtful if any of the other so- 

 called "characters" of the palatal sti-ucture are of much greater 

 value in distinguishing between the Ratita; and the Carinata. 

 On the other hand^ what a contrast is afforded by the remaining 



