proposed Classification of Birds. 93 



also come into tliis group hardly requires to be said. On ano- 

 ther matter, the alliance between the Gulls and the Auks, 1 

 have much pleasure in stating that I have become a convert to 

 Prof. Huxley's views. This I am quite ready now to admit, 

 though not on the precise grounds he advances. To the Auks, 

 the Divers and Grebes may be akin; but I have some rather 

 strong doubts remaining as to the Penguins. Now on all 

 these points, except one, I had already arrived at opinions closely 

 resembling those of Prof. Huxley, but quite independently of 

 any considerations of the bones of the palate. I accordingly 

 maintain, without entering into any longer disquisition on the 

 subject, that this very natural group, to which the name Schizo- 

 gnathcE is now applied, does not require to be defined by characters 

 drawn from that part of the bird's structure. On the contrary, 

 I cannot help feeling that the introduction of characters drawn 

 from the palatal arrangement may rather have the effect of 

 complicating and rendering obscure what was simple and clear 

 enough without. Even the character which should be distinc- 

 tive, according to the meaning of the name given by Prof. Huxley, 

 is, on his own showing, not entirely so. In Dicholophus, a form 

 at present, as it appears to me, of uncertain position, we read, 

 " the internasal septum is ossified to a very slight extent, and 

 the maxillo-palatine processes may meet in the middle line." 

 If Dicholophus, then, is to be placed, as Prof. Huxley places it, 

 among the Schizognathce, the " character " drawn from the exist- 

 ence of a fissure between the maxillo-palatals can scarcely apply 

 to it. A stronger case perhaps is afforded by Crax, which no one 

 will doubt belongs to the Gallina, and therefore must come in 

 here. Crax has its maxillo-palatals uniting anteriorly in an 

 ossified nasal septum. It is impossible, I think, with this last 

 exceptional instance before us, to regard the intermaxillo-palatal 

 fissure as a true " character." Accordingly, then, the SchizO' 

 gnathcB (as I trust I have succeeded in showing) cannot be strictly 

 defined by their palatal characters ; and if not strictly defined by 

 them, surely it would be better to leave such " characters" alone. 

 Yet these Schizognathce ai-e certainly one of the most natural 

 groups among the Suborders proposed by Prof. Huxley; and if 

 palatal characters fail us in them, much more will they fail us 



