OF GALLINACEOUS BIRDS AND TINAMOUS. 233 
** meso- 
pterygoid” (in Fish and, as I find very constant, in Birds) I substitute 
pterygoid,” as it is not the homologue of the internal pterygoid plate of Man and 
the Mammalia generally, but occurs in the Fox and some others in addition to the 
internal or true pterygoid. Again, the term ‘‘ ectopterygoid ” would seem to infer that 
it was the homologue of the external pterygoid plate, which it is not; it only occurs in 
the ‘‘ Sauropsida :”” Cuvier’s term “‘ os transversum”’ must be retained for the present. 
The small membrane-bones which, in the ‘‘ Lamellirostral” birds and in the Tiger Bittern, 
pass inwards and forwards from the inner edge of the palatines at their middle, may be 
called “‘interpalatines:” they occur exogenously in the palatines of many arboreal birds. 
Instead of using the heavy terms “‘ ecto-” and ‘‘ ento-pterapophysis ” for the processes 
which, often in the Mammalia and constantly in birds, arise from the basisphenoid, 
and which have no anthropotomical name, these had better be called posterior and 
anterior pterygoid processes. In Man these have no existence; for the “‘ lingulz sphe- 
noidales”’ (the rudiments, as Professor Huxley suggested to me, of my ‘‘ basitemporals”’ 
in the ‘‘ Sauropsida ”’) apply themselves closely to the body of the sphenoid behind. In 
many Mammals these ossicles are thrust outwards to some distance from the axis of the 
skull by a pair of small posterior pterygoid processes ; in the Hedgehog these parts are 
very large. In most Mammals the internal pterygoid plate abuts against the body of 
the sphenoid; but in the Guineapig (Cavia aperea) a pair of pedicles keep them off, 
and to them they are eventually anchylosed: these are a retention of the ornithic 
‘anterior pterygoid processes ”’—the ‘‘ entopterapophyses ” of my former paper. 
These processes attain their largest size in the “‘ Struthionide” (Pl. XLII. fig. 1, apt.), 
are aborted in many genera, and do not exist in the Reptilia ; forin them the pterygoids 
are attached to the skull-base still further backwards than in the Ostriches, through the 
medium of the pterygoid processes of the basitemporals ; these latter processes are well 
seen in the King-Vulture (Sarcorhamphus papa), but in it they are only used for muscular 
attachment. 
I have in this paper used the term ‘‘ prevomer” for the splint bone which is vicarious 
of the maxillary in the Bird-class: it is not (as Cuvier supposed) the homologue of the 
‘inferior turbinal” of Man. 
At p. 285 of my former paper, the Oyster-catcher (H@matopus) is placed in “‘ Group 3,” 
instead of in ‘‘ Group 5,” as though it had its anterior pterygoid processes aborted: this 
is not the case. The “ turbinals or ethmoidal pterapophyses,” spoken of at p. 297, are 
really the inner parts of the prevomer and the “‘ maxillaries ;” at p. 301, the outer margins 
of these bones. 
At p. 317, in a note, the tympanic is spoken of as being absent from the skulls of 
most “ Gallinacee :” this only refers to the meatus-bone, so large in the Peacock. I 
had not then discovered the proper tympanic chain of ossicles. 
At p. 317 I failed to mention that the small tongue of the Baleniceps showed its 
near relationship to the Ibis. When the whole of the ardeine “ Altrices” have been 
2H 2 
- 
