PROF. W. K. PARKER ON ©GITHOGNATHOUS BIRDS. 291 
him in his usually terse and lucid manner; but he does not give any very definite 
explanation of the meaning of the parts. Speaking of the region to which I have 
recently given most attention, he says (p. 451), “The anterior part of the nasal septum 
(in front of the vomer) is frequently ossified in A.githognathous birds, and the interval 
between it and the premaxilla filled up with spongy bone; but no union takes place 
between this ossification and the vomer.” So far, true; but this isa very meagre account 
of the matter; and whether the “spongy bones,” mostly cartilaginous, belong to the 
same category as our own “inferior turbinals,’ or are the large ornithic “‘alinasal 
turbinals,” is not stated; neither is it noticed what kind of union takes place between 
the yomer and these turbinals. 
It is evident that nothing but the embryology of their parts, and their comparison 
through a huge series, can test the value of the group to which the term Aigitho- 
gnathous is applied. 
Neither does our author fairly superimpose his ‘“‘ Coracomorphe” upon his “‘ Aigitho- 
gnathe,” although they come far nearer to fitting than any other of the groups charac- 
terized on the one hand by their general form, and on the other by their facial modi- 
fications. I have only found three families of the “‘ Hgithognathe” that cannot 
logically be placed amongst the “ Coracomorphe ’—namely, the ‘“ Cypselide” in the 
crown, and the “ Turnicide ” and “ Thinocoride ” amongst the roots, of the great ornithic 
life-tree. But other facial groups, ‘‘ Desmognathe,” ‘“‘ Schizognathe,” &c. turn up any- 
where and everywhere; so that the ornithologist mindful of great groups of one 
especial form, the Crow-form for instance, and yet desirous of seeing all things in the 
light of facial morphology, must work with both hands earnestly, now surveying the 
thousands of types in conformity with that one pattern, and then using his knowledge 
of their anatomical analysis. 
With regard to the form-groups, I have to complain that they are not of equal worth, 
but far from it; these self-same “ Coracomorphe ” are, zoologically, worth four or five of 
other groups that might be pointed out, which yet have a like terminology: this must 
be remedied. Yet it is a fact that the Passerine birds are most potent of all in families, 
genera, and species, and that these, forming half the known birds, are, on the whole, 
wonderfully uniform. The limits of the egithognathous group given here will not 
accord with those given by my friend. I reject his Goatsuckers and Humming-birds, retain 
his Swifts, and bring in from the lower kinds of Carinatee the Hemipods’ and Thino- 
corus. ‘These low types, especially, make the harmony of the two maps, the facial and 
the physiognomical, impossible. But they do this: they make the investigation of the 
* Professor Huxley did not, I believe, suspect that a family classed by him with the Fowls (Alectoromorphe) 
was possessed of an «githognathous face ; yet this the “‘ Turnicide ” haye, as I find, both by examination of the 
skull of the young and adult Hemipodius varius, and the skull of the young of Twurnix rostratus. 
Mr. Robert Swinhoe, F.Z.S., sent me the latter; my friend Mr. Osbert Salvin, F.R.S., has lent me 
the Hemipod and many others, vital to my work; and Mr. W. J. Williams, of the Zoological Society, pre~ 
sented me with six invaluable passerine forms from Australia. 
2R2 
