﻿Swifts 
  and 
  Humming 
  -bii'ds. 
  85 
  

  

  put 
  forward 
  in 
  their 
  works 
  the 
  statement 
  that 
  the 
  Humming- 
  

   birds 
  are 
  related 
  to 
  the 
  Swifts^ 
  especially 
  wlien 
  we 
  now 
  have 
  

   so 
  much 
  at 
  our 
  command 
  clearly 
  indicating 
  that 
  no 
  such 
  

   kinship 
  exists. 
  

  

  If 
  we 
  take 
  Dr. 
  Coues^ 
  for 
  example^ 
  he 
  has 
  said 
  of 
  the 
  

   Swifts 
  that 
  their 
  "^real 
  affinities 
  are 
  with 
  the 
  tenuirostral 
  

   Trochilidfe 
  (Humming-birds) 
  in 
  every 
  structural 
  pecu- 
  

   liarity""^, 
  and 
  then, 
  to 
  be 
  thoroughly 
  inconsistent, 
  imme- 
  

   diately 
  thereafter, 
  upon 
  succeeding 
  pages 
  of 
  the 
  work 
  quoted, 
  

   proceeds 
  to 
  show, 
  by 
  an 
  array 
  of 
  " 
  structural 
  peculiarities," 
  

   for 
  his 
  two 
  families, 
  the 
  Cypselidse 
  and 
  Trochilidse, 
  how 
  

   widely 
  different 
  those 
  two 
  groups 
  really 
  are 
  ! 
  But 
  Dr. 
  Cones 
  

   also 
  believes 
  that 
  the 
  tongue 
  in 
  the 
  Humming-birds 
  " 
  is 
  in 
  

   effect 
  a 
  double-barrelled 
  tube, 
  supposed 
  to 
  be 
  used 
  to 
  suck 
  

   the 
  sweets 
  of 
  flowers" 
  t; 
  so 
  really 
  we 
  hardly 
  ought 
  to 
  be 
  

   called 
  upon 
  to 
  accept 
  this 
  writer's 
  statement 
  that 
  " 
  the 
  Tro- 
  

   chilidse, 
  in 
  all 
  essential 
  structural 
  characters, 
  are 
  nearest 
  

   related 
  to 
  the 
  Cypselidaj," 
  when 
  he 
  displays 
  such 
  an 
  evident 
  

   lack 
  of 
  knowledge 
  of 
  the 
  " 
  structural 
  peculiarities 
  " 
  of 
  the 
  

   tongue 
  in 
  these 
  birds. 
  

  

  Recently 
  Mr. 
  R. 
  Ridgway 
  has 
  had 
  his 
  share 
  in 
  keeping 
  

   alive 
  the 
  false 
  idea 
  that 
  Swifts 
  and 
  Humming-birds 
  '' 
  are 
  

   more 
  closely 
  related 
  to 
  each 
  other 
  than 
  are 
  either 
  to 
  any 
  

   other 
  group 
  of 
  birds," 
  and 
  he 
  has 
  added 
  that, 
  " 
  in 
  fact, 
  

   except 
  in 
  the 
  shape 
  of 
  the 
  bill 
  and 
  structure 
  of 
  the 
  bones 
  of 
  

   the 
  face, 
  the 
  Humming-birds 
  and 
  Swifts 
  present 
  no 
  definite 
  

   differences 
  of 
  osteological 
  structure"!. 
  Such 
  a 
  statement 
  

   can 
  mean 
  nothing 
  more 
  than 
  that 
  Mr. 
  Ridgway 
  is 
  quite 
  

   ignorant 
  of 
  the 
  skeletal 
  characters 
  of 
  both 
  the 
  two 
  groups 
  

   of 
  birds 
  to 
  which 
  he 
  refers. 
  

  

  * 
  Coues, 
  E. 
  ' 
  Key 
  to 
  Nortli-Amevicau 
  Birds.' 
  Revised 
  ed. 
  1884, 
  p. 
  45G. 
  

  

  t 
  Loc. 
  cit. 
  p. 
  458. 
  It 
  is 
  not 
  at 
  all 
  strauge 
  that 
  Mr. 
  R. 
  Ridgway 
  should 
  

   believe 
  that 
  the 
  tongue 
  of 
  the 
  Humming-birds 
  is 
  hollow 
  (as 
  he 
  has 
  

   published 
  in 
  a 
  recent 
  work 
  of 
  his, 
  quoted 
  further 
  on), 
  for 
  he 
  has 
  nevta- 
  

   pretended 
  to 
  have 
  personally 
  examined 
  into 
  the 
  anatomy 
  of 
  the 
  group 
  at 
  

   any 
  time. 
  That 
  such 
  is 
  not 
  the 
  case 
  every 
  comparative 
  avian 
  niorpho- 
  

   logist 
  very 
  well 
  knows. 
  

  

  X 
  Robert 
  Ridgway, 
  Curator, 
  Department 
  of 
  Birds, 
  U.S. 
  Nat. 
  JMuseum. 
  

   "The 
  Humming-Birds." 
  Rep. 
  of 
  Nat. 
  Mus. 
  1890 
  (pp. 
  253-883), 
  p. 
  290. 
  

   Washington, 
  D.C., 
  1892. 
  

  

  