334 MR. F. E. BEDDARD ON [Apr. 15, 



(11) The descending process of the lachrymal does not unite with 

 the prefrontal process of the ethmoid. 



Psopliia shows the following points of difference from RJiino- 

 chefns : — 



(I) The inner margin of the palatines is not so greatly bent 

 downwards to form the inner lamina. 



({)) It is holorhinal. 



(S) The palatines are not of the same breadth throughout, but 

 are wider behind than in front. 



(9) The temporal fossse are comparatively shallow, and there is 

 no trace of them upon the occipital face of the skull. 



(10) The surface of the maxillary j)iirt of the nasal bone is directed 

 outwards and not forwards. 



(II) The lateral ethmoid processes do not come into actual contact 

 with descending process of lachrymal ; lachrymals themselves are 

 large and nearly join jugal. 



Psophia differs in the following from Eurypyga :■ — 

 (3) There is no cons})icuous foramen at junction of the quadrato- 

 jugal with the maxillary, 

 ((i) It is holorhinal. 



(7) The interorhital plate is not largely vacuolate. 



(8) The palatines are wider behind than in front. 



(9) Temporal foss?e are comparatively deep but do not appear 

 on occipital face of skull. 



(10) The surface of the maxillary part of the nasal bone is 

 directed outwards \ 



Psophia shows no perceptible differences from Cariama in the 

 points enumerated above except in the comparative shallowness of 

 tem])oral fossa, which indeed hardly extends on to the occipital region 

 of the skull in Psophia. 



The principal points in which it does differ are the absence of a 

 special bone uniting the lachrymal with the quadrato-jugal ", and of 

 course the ])resence of the supraorbital chain : in the greater space 

 which separates tlie two maxillo-palatines, which are all but fused in 

 Cariama ; in the fact that the jugals are attached to the maxilla above 

 the point where tlie palatines articulate with the same bones. In 

 this resjject Psopliia agrees with all Oanes and Rails that I have 

 examined, while Cariama strongly resembles Serpentarius '■'. 



' This cluiraoterislic difference in llie buiie is 'nat correlated witli the scliizo- 

 ihiiial (ir holorliinal nature of the skidl ; altliough it appears to be so from the 

 types selected for comparison in these tables. For wliile Xli/zioii/in agrees 

 with Eiir//p//(/a, I'arru agrees with Psophia and the Rails. Lariw, w'liich is, of 

 course, schizorhinal, agrees with I'sopl/ia, and the holorhinal i\7/c'^(eor«.r has the 

 nasals directed forwards quite as in Illiiiioclutus. 



- Mr. Forbes (Report on the Anatomy of Petrels [Tubniares], Zool. Chall. 

 Exp. vol. iv. pi. xi. p. 44) remarks that a similar bone occurs in Frcgafu and in 

 some Petrels. This may be so, but it must be remembered that in the hitter 

 birds, as Forbes coi-rectly states, the bone is attached to the palatine, whereas 

 in Chunya, as I have stated above, it is attached to the quadrato-jugal. 



•' Some other Desmognathous bii-ds (not Accipitrine) also resemble Cariama 

 in this point. 



