OSTEOLOGY OF SCOPUS UMBRETTA AND BALiENICEPS REX. 407 



in the last published part of the magnificent Histoire Naturelle 

 dc Madagascar, but the letterpress has not yet appeared. 

 M. Milne-Edwards no doubt intends to describe the osteology, 

 and for that reason I have not entered into any description of 

 it in the present paper." ^ 



Of the Skull. — Unfortunately, I have no skeleton at hand of 

 Balmniceps, and so rely entirely upon Parker's excellent memoir 

 and plates, in so far as comparing the skull of Scopus with that 

 species is concerned. I have at my command, however, good 

 skeletons of Ciconia alba and Ardea herodias, and these are 

 more important than B. rex, as the last-named bird is far more 

 nearly related to Cancroma than it is to Scopus. 



In Sco2yus the osseous superior mandible is much compressed 

 from side to side, with cultrate dentary borders, and with the 

 line of the culmen beyond the narial apertures nearly straight 

 and very sharp. The nostrils are antero-posteriorly elongated 

 concavities, situated high up and well back, with the culmen 

 rounded and elevated above them (see Plate XXXIX.). The bony 

 roof of the mouth is entire, and lies chiefly in the horizontal 

 plane. This is also the case in Ardea herodias, while in the 

 Stork an elongated vacuity exists beyond the vomerine region. 

 Scopus has its narial openings, however, more as they are in the 

 Ciconia than as they are in the Heron, though the form of its 

 upper bony beak is quite unlike either. There is one character 

 here we find in Scopus that neither Stork nor Heron possesses, 

 and that is, upon either side of the osseous mandible, the straight, 

 sharply-defined sunken line extending from the narial aperture 

 to a point just posterior to the mandibular apex (see Plate 

 XXXIX.). Upon comparing the d'anitim proper of Scopus with 

 these birds, it at once becomes evident that in its general form 

 it is nearly all Stork, with nothing in it to remind one of the 

 Herons. This resemblance is due to an actual similitude of the 

 several separate characters, and not to a superficial likeness. 

 The form of the orbital cavity, the lacrymal bones, as well as the 

 quadrates are ciconine throughout, while the entire interorbital 



^ This great work, I understand, has now been entirely published, but we have 

 as yet no copy of it in the libraries of Washington. The only one I know of in 

 this country is to be found in the library of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 

 Philadelphia (Phil., Pa., U.S.A.). 



