2128 Thf, Zoologist — May, 1870. 



standing discreet from each other, like so many narrow spear- 

 points. 



The very large series of this bird examined warrants the belief that 

 the horn is always present, accidents of course not considered ; that it 

 begins to be apparent even before the bird is fully fledged, as a slight 

 knob. That, in like manner, the accessory symphyseal piece is 

 always developed ; and that its beginning may be detected at a very 

 early age. These facts must be borne in mind in discussing the 

 unusually interesting points connected with Sagmatorrhina as 

 compared with the present genus. The opinion relative to the 

 seasonal or sexual character of the horn (page 905, Birds of N. A.)* 

 would probably not have been expressed, had the writer enjoyed the 

 opportunity of examining such an extensive series as has been at 

 command in the preparation of the present monograph. 



Genus Sacmatourhina, Bonaparte. 



" Bill twice as long as high, upper mandible straight at the base, 

 covered with a very large cere, incurved at the tip ; lower mandible 

 ascending immediately beyond the middle, forming an obtuse angle ; 

 nostrils linear, marginal." 



The above is a translation of the diagnosis of a genus framed by 

 Bonaparte for the reception of a bird he calls S. Lathami. It 

 apparently differs from Ceratorhyncha in the contour of the bill, the 

 presence of a soft cere saddled on the base of the upper mandible in 

 the place of a horn, and, it may be presumed, in the absence of the 

 peculiar accessory corneous element at the mandibular symphysis, as 

 no mention is made of such a character. The type and apparently 

 only known specimen is in the British Museum. 



The possession of a soft flat cere in place of an upright horn, and 

 the want of the accessory mandibular piece, are precisely the features 

 which characterize Cerorhiua Suckleyi, Cassin ; and in fact are about 

 the only ones by which the latter can satisfactorily be distinguished, 

 specifically, from C. monocerata. It therefore seems a procedure of 

 obvious propriety to refer Suckleyi to the present genus. At the 

 same time Suckleyi can by no possibility be confounded with 

 Lathami ; nor is the latter by any means a young C. monocerata, as 



* Spec. No. 10,698, there enumerated, seeius to have called forth the remark above 

 alluded to. This specimen, however, is believed to be the adult of S. Suckleyi, of 

 which only the young bird was at thai time recognized. 



