232 MR. W. K. PARKER ON THE OSTEOLOGY 
in the Tinamou, from head to foot this foolish, lizard-like bird of the dust has only 
pushed against, but has not been able to break from, the outer Ostrich-barrier. 
APPENDIX. 
A.—WNotes and Criticisms on the Memoir ‘‘ On the Osteology of Baleniceps rex” 
(Zool. Trans. 1861). 
From the very nature of my work, which is that of determining the affinities of birds 
by means of their skeletal structures, a large amount of morphological detail has to be 
given. In my former large paper this detail was very much in excess; and in the 
present it rather preponderates over that which is purely zoological. This arises from 
the fact that the actual development of the skeleton generally, and especially of the 
skull, is only beginning to open itself up to me. I may state that in the working-out 
of the present paper I have stumbled upon many curious embryological facts, both in 
the Bird-class and amongst Fishes, Reptiles, and Mammals, which were not known to 
me heretofore. 
Moreover, during this time, the privilege of frequent discussions with men of less 
embarrassed and clearer thought has imparted to me not merely fresh impulse and 
valuable hints, but also facts of the greatest importance. The invaluable course of 
lectures, delivered during the past year by Professor Huxley, at the College of Surgeons, 
have been of the greatest value to me; and his lucid determinations of the meaning of 
the periotic bones, and of the large splint bone at the base of the skull, in Fishes and 
Amphibia form most excellent stand-points from which to begin future researches in 
the morphology of the skull. 
The highly composite nature of the pterygo-palatine apparatus, and of the rhinal 
structures,—the great variety in the development of the tympanic chain of bones,—the 
absence, as a rule, or extremely abortive condition of the maxillary in birds,—and the 
determination of the so-called maxillaries to be the homologues of the miscalled inferior 
turbinals of the Lacertian and Ophidian,—these and many other points, which in their 
opening up have gladdened me in my labours, must be treated of elsewhere. 
In both zoology and botany the discovery of new species is ever disturbing the old 
order of things: it is just so in morphology ; and the nomenclature must be as mobile 
as the science which it subserves. 
Many of the statements in my former paper with regard to the general morphology 
of the vertebrate skull are very open to criticism ; I am now engaged in such researches 
as will either prove or disprove them: there is not space to deal with them here. 
In the present paper I have endeavoured to make the nomenclature of the parts of 
the skull simpler and more accurate, and especially to keep safe by the old familiar 
terms used in descriptions of the human skull. For Professor Owen’s term ‘‘ ento- 
