﻿92 
  

  

  Dr. 
  R. 
  W. 
  Slmfeldt 
  on 
  

  

  22. 
  Cranium 
  above 
  smooth 
  and 
  

   rounded. 
  

  

  2.3. 
  Vomer 
  truncated. 
  

  

  24. 
  Maxillo-palatines 
  prominent 
  

   and 
  produced 
  well 
  backwards, 
  tend- 
  

   ing 
  to 
  approach 
  mesially. 
  

  

  25. 
  Postero-external 
  angles 
  of 
  

   palatines 
  produced 
  as 
  proihinent 
  

   processes. 
  

  

  26. 
  Palatine 
  beads 
  of 
  pterygoids 
  

   nearly 
  meeting 
  mesially. 
  

  

  27. 
  Pars 
  plana 
  small 
  and 
  formed 
  

   as 
  in 
  Swallows. 
  

  

  28. 
  Interorbital 
  septum 
  shows 
  

   several 
  vacuities, 
  and 
  these 
  are 
  dis- 
  

   tinct 
  from 
  those 
  on 
  the 
  posterior 
  

   orbital 
  wall. 
  

  

  20. 
  Mandible 
  a 
  wide 
  V, 
  without 
  

   ramal 
  vacuity. 
  

  

  22. 
  Cranium 
  above 
  showing 
  a 
  

   deep 
  longitudinal 
  groove 
  for 
  ends 
  

   of 
  hyoid. 
  

  

  23. 
  Vomer 
  long 
  and 
  spine-lilio. 
  

  

  24. 
  Maxillo-palatines 
  not 
  promi- 
  

   nent, 
  being 
  rounded 
  and 
  wide 
  apart. 
  

  

  25. 
  External 
  margin 
  of 
  each 
  pa- 
  

   latine 
  nearly 
  straight, 
  and 
  no 
  angle 
  

   present. 
  

  

  26. 
  Palatine 
  heads 
  of 
  pterygoids 
  

   widely 
  separated 
  mesially 
  (and 
  I 
  

   have 
  seen 
  specimens 
  where 
  they 
  

   nnchylose 
  to 
  the 
  palatines). 
  

  

  27. 
  Pars 
  plana 
  very 
  large 
  and 
  very 
  

   different 
  from 
  that 
  of 
  the 
  Swallows. 
  

  

  28. 
  Interorbital 
  septum 
  never 
  

   shows 
  but 
  one 
  vacuity, 
  which 
  

   merges 
  with 
  one 
  that 
  absorbs 
  nearly 
  

   all 
  the 
  posterior 
  orbital 
  wall. 
  

  

  29. 
  Mandible 
  a 
  long 
  and 
  ex- 
  

   tremely 
  narrow 
  V, 
  with 
  ramal 
  va- 
  

   cuity. 
  

  

  These 
  cranial 
  characters 
  are 
  extracted 
  from 
  a 
  memoir 
  of 
  

   mine 
  which 
  appeared 
  in 
  the 
  Linnean 
  Society's 
  ' 
  Journal 
  ' 
  

   (Zoology) 
  (London, 
  vol. 
  xx. 
  p. 
  376), 
  and 
  I 
  will, 
  throughout 
  

   the 
  remainder 
  of 
  the 
  present 
  article, 
  continue 
  to 
  quote 
  from 
  

   the 
  same 
  source 
  in 
  a 
  great 
  many 
  instances. 
  Ridgway 
  puh- 
  

   lishes 
  the 
  statement 
  in 
  his 
  ' 
  Humming- 
  Birds 
  " 
  that 
  " 
  wiiile 
  

   the 
  skull 
  in 
  general 
  shows 
  but 
  little 
  to 
  indicate 
  relationship 
  

   with 
  other 
  groups 
  of 
  birds, 
  the 
  base 
  of 
  the 
  cranium 
  is 
  very 
  

   Swift-like.^' 
  It 
  is 
  obvious 
  that 
  Mr. 
  Ridgway 
  has 
  never 
  

   compared 
  the 
  " 
  base 
  of 
  the 
  cranium^' 
  o£ 
  Swifts 
  with 
  the 
  cor- 
  

   responding 
  part 
  of 
  the 
  skeleton 
  in 
  a 
  Sivallow, 
  for 
  had 
  he 
  

   done 
  so 
  he 
  most 
  surely 
  would 
  have 
  seen 
  precisely 
  what 
  

   Professor 
  Huxley 
  saw 
  years 
  ago, 
  when 
  he 
  said 
  that 
  " 
  in 
  their 
  

   cranial 
  characters 
  the 
  Swifts 
  are 
  far 
  more 
  closely 
  allied 
  with 
  

   the 
  Swallows 
  than 
  with 
  any 
  of 
  the 
  Desmognathous 
  birds, 
  the 
  

   Swift 
  presenting 
  but 
  a 
  very 
  slight 
  modification 
  of 
  the 
  true 
  

   Passerine 
  type 
  exhibited 
  by 
  the 
  Swallow 
  " 
  (P. 
  Z. 
  S. 
  1867, 
  

   p. 
  456). 
  

  

  