332 



MR. F. E. BEDDARD ON 



[Apr. 15, 



Griis. 



Maxillo-palatines of con- 

 siderable size and visible 

 from beneath. 



Vomer ends in a point. 



Postorbital not distinct 

 from postfrontal pro- 



Foramen magnum at 

 posterior end of skull. 



Schizorhinal. 



Hmmatojnis. 



Maxillo-palatines very 

 small and fused with 

 palatines. 



Vomer truncated at ex- 

 tremity ^. 



Postorbital angle slight 

 but distinct from p08t- 

 fontal process. 



Temporal fossre com- 

 mence below formerand 

 extend on to occipital 

 surface. 



Foramen magnum visible 

 on under surface of 

 skull. 



Schizorhinal. 



(Edicn^mus. 



Maxillo-palatine.s of con- 

 siderable size and visible 

 from beneath. 



Vomer ends in a blunt 

 point. 



Postorbital angle not dis- 

 tinct from postfrontal 

 process. 



Foramen magnum at po.s- 

 terior end of skull. 



Holorhinal. 



Two prominent members of Huxley's Geranomorphse show the 

 following resemblances and differences : — 



Ocydromus. 



None. 



Articulation of quadrate concealed by 

 squamosal. 



Interorbital septum hardly ossified -. 



Maxillo-palatines with an outer con- 

 vex border ■'. 



Maxillary part of nasal bone facing 

 outwards. 



Anterior process of quadrate does 

 end in a straight truncated surface. 



Grus. 



Occipital foramina present. 



Ai'ticulation of quadrate not concealed 

 by squamosal. 



Interorbital septum less defective. 



Maxillo-palatines with an outer con- 

 cave border. 



Maxillary part of nasal bone facing 

 forwards. 



Anterior process of quadrate does 

 not end in a straight truncated 

 extremity. 



Palatines of a]}proximately equal 

 breadth throughout; anteriorly they 

 largely conceal the underlying 

 maxillo-palatines. 



Schizorhinal. 



There is a sharp distinction between 

 the anterior narrow and the po.ste- 

 rior broad portion of palatine. The 

 maxillo-palatines are not much con- 

 cealed by the palatines. 



Holorhinal. 



In the following pages some of the most prominent skull cha- 

 racters are given in which Fsophia differs from various genera of 

 "Alectorides." It does not appear to me to show any particular 

 resemblances to the well-marked family of the Limicolae. I have 

 not therefore troubled to indicate its differences from that family 

 which would be in all the points raised as well as in many others. 



' Garrod ("Notes on the Anatomy and Systematic Position of the Genera 

 Thinocorus and Attayis" P. Z. S. 1S77, p. 417, fig. 2) figures the vomer of this 

 and other " Limicolaj" a.s excavated at the top. It was cerlainly not so in my 

 specimen. In Xumciiius phieopi/s there is an extraordinarily deep excavation 

 at the point of the vomer ; so much .so that the vouur might be described as 

 bifid with two slender branches. 



- This is not so with Fulica and Aramidcs, which are nearer to the Ciaues. 



^ This does not apply to Fulica. 



