2206 The Zoologist— July, 1870. 



dried specimen) posteriorly dark brown, anteriorly lighter, more reddish 

 brown ; feet dull brown ; claws reddish brown. 



Length of body (approximately) 8'00 inches; wing 5'60 ; tail 1"60; 

 bill — chord of culmen '45; depth at base "28, width at base nearly the 

 same ; length of rictus '95 ; tarsus TOO ; middle toe 1'25, its claw '35 ; 

 outer toe I'SO, its claw "30; inner toe and claw I'lO; length of out- 

 stretched crest 1*40; length of longest whitish feathers over eye TOO. 



Os hyoides examined : The apohyals are slender cylindrical bones 

 "6 long, slightly knobbed at the end, devaricating at an angle of about 

 40*^. The ceratohyals are absent in the specimen. The urohyal is a 

 delicate style for '10 of an inch, then suddenly expands into a broad, 

 flat, very thin spatulous lamina, subrectangular in shape, or rather 

 cordate, transversely concavo-convex. This lamina is as long as the 

 rest of the urohyal, and its breadth is rather greater than the length 

 of the stylous portion. The basi-hyal is "15 of an inch long, slender 

 and cylindrical, bearing upon its apex an exceedingly thin, expanded, 

 somewhat cochleariform glosso-hyal. No opportunity has presented 

 itself of examining the tongue-bones of other species of the family. 



The present is a long and well-known species. First made known, 

 at the beginning of the present century, by Lepechin, it was re- 

 described as Uria mystacea. in the Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica, by 

 Dr. Pallas, whose expression " * * pennulis setaceis albis 

 elongatis superciliaribus mystaceisque^'' leaves no room for doubt as to 

 the species he had in view. It was redescribed in 1823 by Prof. 

 Lichlenstein, under the name of Mormon superciliosum. Unfor- 

 tunately, it furnished the subject of Planche Coloriee, No. 200, at the 

 hands of M. Temrainck, under the palpable pseudonym of Phaleris 

 cristatella, which event might have been the occasion of confusion 

 and uncertainty were the bird a less strongly characterized species. 

 As it is, there is no difficulty in detecting and correcting M. Tem- 

 minck's error. S. camtschatica is so very distinct from cristatella, 

 that no special comparisons of the two are required. It is only 

 necessary to point to the configuration of the bill, and the presence of 

 superciliary and maxillary filoplumes, for their ready discrimination. 

 For the rest, the present is a much smaller species than cristatellus, 

 and the plume is perhaps longer, certainly less recurved, usually com- 

 posed of fewer feathers, which are rather more filamentous. The 

 setaceous feathers are essentially arranged, as may be seen above, in 

 three distinct sets or bundles; one from the side of the bill along the 

 commissure and lower part of the cheeks; one from the culmen over 



