266 MR. W. P. PYCRAFT ON THE MORPHOLOGY AND 
SUMMARY. 
The group of birds which we collectively designate the “ Ratite” is the same as that 
to which this name was originally given by Merrem in 1813 (with the addition of 
Apteryx, then unknown), on account of the fact that all agreed in the absence of a keel 
to the sternum. They were “raft-breasted,” in contradistinction to the Carinate, or 
keel-breasted !. 
Nitzsch, Huxley, Newton, Sclater, and Sharpe have successively adopted Merrem’s 
subdivision of the class Aves—adding the Saurure, unknown to Merrem. 
Other workers, both before and since Merrem, have accorded to the “ Ratite” no 
greater prominence than that of an order or suborder of the class Aves. Sometimes 
eyen this was considered too great a distinction, and they were reduced to the rank of 
a Family, including such forms as Bustards, Plovers, &c. 
The “ Ratite” of Merrem were apparently regarded by that author, as well as by 
Huxley, Newton, Sclater, Sharpe, and other systematists, as a monophyletic group. 
Firbringer, Gadow, and Parker stand prominently forward as advocates for a poly- 
phyletic origin. 
Gadow’s views are admirably set forth in his contribution to Bronn’s ‘ Thier-Reich’ 
[26]. Briefly, he regards the “ Ratite” as a morphologically monophyletic group, 
standing in the same relation to the class Aves as the Anthropomorphe to the rest of 
the Mammalia. : 
With this view we entirely agree. We venture further, and include the Crypturi 
within the group. This was done long since by Garrod [30] and Stejneger. 
Beddard [7], later, has shown a strong inclination to follow suit. Thus, he says:—‘ It 
is unquestionably to the Struthiones that they showed the greatest number of important 
likenesses, so much so, indeed, that their inclusion in one great group with them 
would be by no means an unreasonable way of disposing of them.” 
The Dromeognathous palate is sufficient justification for such an association. 
Consent to this, however, renders inoperative the old term “ Ratite,” which at best is 
but a makeshift ; for many of the Carinate are Ratite, whilst the Tinamous have a 
large keel to the sternum. 
We propose instead the terms Palewognathw (Ratite + Crypturi) and Neognathe 
(Carinatee—Crypturi). The adoption of these surmounts the difficulty indicated above. 
Gadow regards the Struthiones as a group of primitive forms more nearly repre- 
senting Proto-Carinate than any other living birds. Their retention under the common 
name “ Ratite” he regarded as convenient rather than an indication of close affinity. 
Similarly we regard the Palwognathw as the unsuccessful descendants of proto- 
carinate forms, but retaining probably but few of their characteristics unaltered. It 
would be too much to regard any of the existing Weognathw as the direct descendants 
of any of the existing or extinct Palewognathe known to us, but it seems not 
* Blanchard in 1859 substituted for Merrem’s the terms Tropido- and Homalosterni. 
