334 MR. F. E. BEDDARU ON L^V^- ^^' 



(11) The descending process of the lachrymal does not unite with 

 the prefrontal process of the ethmoid. 



Psopliia shows the following points of difference from Rhino- 

 chetus : — 



(I) The inner margin of the palatines is not so greatly bent 

 downwards to form the inner lamina. 



(6) It is holorhinal. 



(8) The palatines are not of the same breadth throughout, but 

 are wider behind than in front. 



(P) Tlie temporal fossae are comparatively shallow, and there is 

 no trace of them upon the occipital face of the skull. 



(10) The surface of the maxillary part of the nasal bone is directed 

 outwaids and not forwards. 



(II) The lateral ethmoid processes do not come into actual contact 

 Avith descending process of lachrymal ; lachrymals themselves are 

 large and nearly join jugal. 



Psophia differs in the following from Eunjpyga : — • 

 (3) There is no conspicuous foramen at junction ol the quadrato- 

 jugal with the maxillary. 

 (G) It is holorhinal. 



(7) The iuterorbital plate is not largely vacuolate. 



(8) The palatines are wider behind than in front. 



(!)) Temporal fossae are comparatively deep but do not appear 

 on occipital face of skull. 



(10) The surface of the maxillary part of the nasal bone is 

 directed outwards '. 



Psophia shows no perceptible differences from Cariama in the 

 points enumerated above except in the comparative shallowness of 

 tcmjioral fossa, which indeed hardly extends on to the occipital region 

 of the skull in Psophia. 



The principal points in which it does differ are the absence of a 

 special bone uniting the lachrymal with the quadrato-jugal ', and of 

 course the presence of the supraorbital chain ; in the greater space 

 which separates the two maxillo-palatiues, which are all but fused in 

 Cariama ; in the fact that the jugals ai e attached to the maxilla above 

 the point where the palatines articulate with the same bones. In 

 this respect Psophia agrees witli all {'ranes and Rails that I have 

 examined, while Cariama strongly resembles Serpentariiis ■*. 



' This ehai-aetei-istic diflereuce in the buiie is iiut covreliited with the schizo- 

 rhinal or holorhinal nature oT the skull ; aUhough it appears to be so from the 

 types selected for comparison in these tables. For while Xiinicniiis agrees 

 with Ettrijpijga, I'arra agrees with Psophia and the Eails. Lams, which is, of 

 foiu'se, schizorhinal, agrees with I'sopJ/la, and the holorhinal Nycticorax has the 

 nasals directed forwards quite as in Khinu-lufus. 



- Mr. Forbes (Report on tlie Anatomy of Petrels [Tubinares], Zool. Cliall. 

 Exp. vol. iv. pi. xi. p. 44) remarks that a similar bone occurs in Frcgafa and in 

 some Petrels. This may be so, but it must be remembered tluit in the latter 

 birds, as Forbes correctly states, the bone is attached to the pahitiue, whereas 

 in Chiinya, as I have stated above, it is attached to the quadrato-jugal. 



' Some other Desmognathous birds (not Accipitrine) also resemble Cariama 

 in this point. 



