February 10, 1899.] 



SCIENCE. 



213 



thologist. Hence this book, replete with 

 anatomical facts, is one that no working orni- 

 thologist can afford to do without. Not only 

 does it contain a vast amount of original work, 

 but a host of references to that of others, and if, 

 as stated in the preface, one bird is occasionally 

 described under two names this is of small con- 

 sequence. It is a poor bird that does not re- 

 joice in at least two names, and there is no 

 danger now-a-days that questions of nomen- 

 clature will suffer from neglect. 



The first 158 pages are devoted to the struc- 

 ture of birds, their more common anatomical 

 features being described under such heads as 

 pterylosis, alimentary canal, respiratory system, 

 etc. Then follow 376 pages on the classifica- 

 tion of birds where the structural characters of 

 each group are given in detail and the affini- 

 ties of each division discussed at some length. 

 As Beddard and his immediate predecessors in 

 the prosectorial chair have been more deeply in- 

 terested in the soft anatomy of birds than in their 

 osteology, it is not surprising to find the book 

 particularly strong in those portions relating to 

 myology and to the detailed structure of the 

 syrinx and alimentary canal. The amount of 

 original research displayed in these directions 

 can but excite the admiration of anyone who 

 has tried his hand at the dissection of small 

 birds and found how trying it is alike to tem- 

 per and eyesight. 



This being the case the occasional slighting of 

 osteological characters — for instance, little or 

 nothing is said concerning the hypotarsus — 

 may be readily forgiven, as well as the rare 

 errors, mostly due to generalizations based on 

 insufficient data. For example, almost on the 

 first page we find the time-worn misstatement 

 that in the Swifts all four toes are directed foi-- 

 ward when this applies mainly, or wholly, to 

 the true Swifts, Micropodinee, since Hemiprocne, 

 and probably Macropieryx, cannot, and the com- 

 mon species of Chsetura do not, turn the first toe 

 forward. Dr. Stejneger and Dr. Coues have 

 both stated the case correctly, and it is a pity to 

 have this error perpetuated. That the patella 

 of the Comorants is perforated by the tendon of 

 the ambiens is but partially true ; it is thus per- 

 forated in carbo, dilophus and vigua ; it is not in 

 urite, penicillatus, punclatus and melanoleucus, 



while the orifice is minute in magellanicua and 

 albiventer. 



A slip of another kind is made in describ- 

 ing the hyoid, where the text neither agrees 

 with the facts nor with the figure on the oppo- 

 site page ; this last, however, is hardly to be 

 wondered at when scarcely any two writers are 

 agreed as to the nomenclature of the parts of a 

 bird's hyoid, and the majority seem in some par- 

 ticular to be incorrect. These little errors are 

 pointed out merely to emphasize the danger of 

 generalizations from observations on a few 

 members of an apparently homogeneous group, 

 and to note that the field of avian anatomy is 

 so large that even the most diligent laborer 

 therein may overlook some of the distant cor- 

 ners. 



Passing to the portion on classification it may 

 be said in the main that the groups are those 

 adopted by Fuerbringer and Stejneger. Bed- 

 dard's divisions (orders?), corresponding, in a 

 general way, to the super-families of Stejneger 

 as given in the Standard Natural History. 

 There is naturally some shifting abovit of de- 

 batable forms, for it is not probable that any two 

 writers would agree on all points of classifica- 

 tion, this largely because birds, as a class, are so 

 homogeneous, while their minor modifications 

 are so infinite, that their arrangement is a diffi- 

 cult matter. To add to the difficulty, the ten- 

 dency is for convenience to pitch the divisions 

 on too high a key, so that they are not compa- 

 rable to those of other vertebrates. 



The two principal divisions are, like those of 

 Fuerbringer, Saururie and Ornithurse, the latter 

 being sub-divided into Anomalogonatx and Eo- 

 malogonafx, although, by a strange oversight, 

 the latter group is only incidentally defined 

 (p. 95), and is not even mentioned in the con- 

 tents, and only by the process of elimination 

 can we ascertain what birds belong to it. 



A similar lapse occurs in treating of the Galli, 

 where, on page 302, we are told the Alectoro- 

 podes may readily be divided into three groups 

 and only two groups are given, while, to com- 

 plicate matters still further, four families are 

 spoken of a little later on. 



Perhaps this may be considered as atoned for 

 by the casting overboard of the divisions 

 Ratilse and Carinatx and the placing of Tina- 



