Probable Habits 



55 



a young Hoactzin of to-day. On account of the relative slenderness of both 

 legs and feet, and to their position far back on the body, Mr. Beddard, a dis- 

 tinguished English anatomist, doubts if the Archceopteryx could have stood erect. 

 On the ground he thinks it must have assumed a quadrupedal position. In 

 support of the opposite view it may be stated that the tips of the wing-quills are 

 not worn or injured, as they almost certainly would have been had they habitu- 

 ally come in contact with the ground. But this is a point that obviously cannot 

 be definitely settled. 



The fact that no openings have been observed for the admission of air into 

 the bones has been taken by several writers to militate against flight. This is 

 certainly a very unsafe generalization, for, as already pointed out, certain birds, 

 as for example the Swallows, that are past masters in the art of flying, have prac- 

 tically non-pneumatic bones, while others, as the Ostriches, have the bones 

 highly pneumatic, yet cannot fly at all. Although the wings were rather short 

 and rounded, the well-developed wing feathers, which appear adequate for the 

 support of a bird of this size, seem to indicate beyond reasonable doubt that 

 Archceopteryx could fly, though perhaps it was incapable of long-sustained 

 flight. The Tinamous furnish an example in point. They have short, rounded 

 wings and can fly well for short distances, but soon become exhausted. If we 

 possessed a more satisfactory knowledge of the breast-bone, we should be the 

 better able to decide regarding the probable power of flight, for if this was actu- 

 ally absent or very much reduced in size, it would appear to militate against the 

 enjoyment of any great power of aerial locomotion. It may be added, as was 

 pointed out by Professor Lydekker, that the slight development of the delto- 

 pectoral crest of the humerus apparently indicates at least weak power of flight. 



As to the food of the Arch&opteryx we of course know nothing, but from the 

 presence of the numerous distinct and rather sharp teeth it may be inferred that 

 these were still of assistance in procuring food, which likely consisted of animals 

 of some kind. But this is largely speculation. 



All things considered, Archceopteryx was a most remarkable animal. While 

 it possessed numerous points of structure unmistakably similar to those of 

 reptiles, it was, on the whole, much nearer to the birds than to the reptiles. 

 It is clearly a connecting link between the two classes, and yet we are undoubt- 

 edly still very far from the original point where the branch was made from the 

 reptilian stem. Indeed, the reptiles as we know them may be very unlike what 

 they were when the division occurred which ended in Archceopteryx on the one 

 hand and modern reptiles on the other. In any event it must have taken a very 

 long period of time for the development of such distinctly bird-like feet and 

 featners. Arch&opteryx is well entitled to be placed in a Subclass, opposed to 

 all other known birds. 



In 1 88 1 Professor O. C. Marsh described, under the name of Laopteryx prisons, a crushed and 

 broken skull and a single detached tooth that may or may not have belonged to it, from the Jurassic 

 beds of Wyoming. This has been supposed to be the skull of a bird, and, for no other reason than 

 that it is found in beds of similar geological age, has sometimes been placed in the Subclass with 

 Archaopteryx. It now seems more than likely that it will be proved to belong to the reptiles, and 

 in any case too little is known of its structure to definitely associate it with Archaopteryx. 



