PARROT 689 



far back: in 1867-68 Dr. Finsch published an excellent monograph 

 of the Parrots, 1 regarding them as a Family, in which he admitted 26 

 genera, forming 5 subfamilies ; but only in the single group NESTOR 

 did he recognize characters that were not external. In 1874 Garrod 

 communicated to the Zoological Society the result of his dissection of 

 examples of 82 species of Parrots, which had lived in its gardens, and 

 these results were published in its Proceedings for that year (pp. 586- 

 598, pis. Ixx. Ixxi.) The principal points to which he attended were 

 the arrangement of the CAROTID artery, and the presence or absence 

 of an AMBIENS muscle, an OIL-GLAND and a FURCULA ; but except as 

 regards the last character he unfortunately almost wholly neglected the 

 rest of the skeleton, looking upon such osteological features as the 

 formation of an orbital ring and peculiarities of the atlas as "of 

 minor importance " an estimate to which nearly every anatomist 

 will demur. Indeed the investigations of Prof. A. Milne-Edwards 

 (Ann. Sc. Nat. Zoologie, ser. 5, vi. pp. 91-111 ; viii. pp. 145-156) 

 on the bones of the head in Parrots make it clear that these alone, 

 and especially the maxilla, present features of much significance, and 

 if his investigations had not been carried on for a special object, but 

 had been extended to other parts of the skeleton, there is little doubt 

 that they would have removed some of the greatest difficulties. The 

 one osteological character to which Garrod trusted, namely, the con- 

 dition of the furcula, contributes little towards a safe basis of classi- 

 fication. That it is wholly absent in some genera of Parrots had long 

 been known, but its imperfect ossification, it appears, is not attended 

 in some cases by any diminution of volant powers, which tends to 

 shew that it is an unimportant character, an inference confirmed by 

 the fact that it was found wanting in genera placed geographically 

 so far apart that the loss must have had in some of them an in- 

 dependent origin. Thus grounded, his scheme was so manifestly 

 artificial that further criticism would here be useless ; the greatest 

 merit of his method is that, as before mentioned (LOVE-BIRD), he 

 gave sufficient reasons for distinguishing between the genera 

 Agapornis and Psittacula. In the Journal fur Ornithologie for 1881 

 Dr. Reichenow published a Conspectus Psittacorum, founded, as so 

 many others 2 have been, on external characters only. He made 9 

 Families of the group, and recognized 45 genera, and 442 species, 

 besides subspecies. In 1883 he brought to completion a work, 3 

 finely illustrated by Herr G. Miitzel, which forms a concise mono- 

 graph. His grouping is generally very different from Garrod's, but 



1 Die Papageien monographiscfi bearbeitet. Leiden : 1867-68. 2 vols. 8vo. 



2 Such, for instance, as Kuhl's treatise with the same title, which appeared in 

 1820, and Wagler's Monographic/, Psittacorum, published in 1832 both good of 

 their kind and time. 



3 Vogelbilder ausfernen Zonen. AbbildungenundSeschreibungender Papageien. 

 Kassel: 1878-83. 



44 



