April 17, 1891.] 



SCIENCE. 



217 



It is evident that the structure of the sacrum at once shows the 

 close affinity of this genus to Agathaumas. The description of 

 the sacrum can be applied fully to the sacrum figured by Professor 

 Marsh under the name of Triceratops. The description of the 

 fore and hind limbs also agrees very much with that of Tricera- 

 tops, and there is not the slightest doubt that Monodonhts belongs 

 to the same family. Monoclonms and Ceratops are from the 

 same locality, Cow Island, Montana; and the portions of the 

 skull figured by Professor Cope {American Naturalist, August, 

 1889) leave no doubt whatever that Monoclonius is identical with 

 Ceratops. The elements formerly considered by Professor Cope 

 as epistemum represent the parietals. I know and have exam- 

 ined the types of Monoclonius and Ceratops, and can state that 

 the two forms are not generically distinct. In the April number 

 of the American Journal of Science a restoration of Triceratops is 

 given by Professor Marsh. I think there is no evidence that the 

 animal had such a long tail as the restoration shows. The post- 

 pubis, the presence of which I had predicted {American Natural- 

 ist, June, 1890), is not represented. In the February number of 

 the American Journal of Science Professor Marsh makes the fol- 

 lowing remarks about the pubis: " One pubis recently discovered 

 has a short, splint-like process, which may, perhaps, be a remnant 

 of a post-pubic element, although it does not have the position of 

 the post-pubic bone in other dinosaurs." Now, there cannot be 

 the slightest doubt that this process is the same element as in the 

 other Iguanodontia, and I do not se that it differs in position. 

 The " splint-like process " is not complete behind, and I predict 

 again that this process extended very much farther behind, just 

 as in the allied Iguanodontidae. 



One of the characters now given by Professor Marsh to the 

 homed saurians consists in the presence of a pineal foramen. This 

 is evidently a mistake. The foramen described as a pineal fora- 

 men has nothing whatever to do, even if it really exists in all the 

 skulls, with the true pineal foramen. This foramen is absent in 

 all Iguanodontia, and it certainly would not make its appearance 

 again in such a highly specialized animal as Agathaumas. I have 

 nothing to add in regard to the teeth. I repeat, that they have not 

 two true roots (compare the American Naturalist, June, 1890). 

 The lumbars of the Agathaumidce are not absent, as stated by 

 Professor Marsh, but are simply co-ossified with the sacral verte- 

 brae. Tbe statement that the post-frontals meet in the middle 

 line I take the liberty to doubt. 



The Agathaumidce (this is the only name which can be given to 

 this group) represents a highly specialized family of the Iguano- 

 dontia {Orthopodd), the nearest allies of which are exhibited by 

 the Iguanodontidae. 



The Agathaumidce contain two forms which are well defined 

 (I neglect here the horned saurians Cratceomus of the Gosau for- 

 mation, Austria, of which only fragments are known), — Agathau- 

 mas Cope, 1873 {Bison Marsh, 1887; Triceratops Marsh, 1889; 

 Sterrholophus Marsh, 1891), and Monoclonius Cope, 1876 {Ceratops 

 Marsh, 1888). Po/j/ona Cope, I think, is also a synonyme oi Aga- 

 thaumas. 



This result is different from that reached by Professor Marsh, 

 who states in the February number of the American Journal of 

 Science, 1891, "The generic names Agathaumas, Cratceomus, 

 Monoclonius. and one or two others, have been given to fragmen- 

 tary fossils which may belong to this group; but these remains, so 

 far as made known, appear quite distinct from those here de- 

 scribed " {Ceratops, Triceratops). G. Baue. 



Clai-k University, Worcester, Mass., April 2. 



The Shrike. 



A PLEASANT article, chiefly concerning the shrike, or butcher- 

 bird, — one of John Burroughs's bright articles, — calls to my mind 

 some questions concerning the food of the shrike. Burroughs 

 says that the shrike kills lizards, toads, birds, etc., by striking 

 them on the head, then eats the brains only, and hangs up the 

 carcass. What for? 



Professor A. Newton, in " EncyclopEedia Britannica," says the 

 shrike hangs up its prey, or impales it, for greater convenience in 

 tearing the carcass to pieces in order to devour it. I have seen a 



shrike's nest in situ. Around it hung a beetle, a mouse, a small 

 bird, and a big bumble-bee. All were within reach of the bird a^ 

 she sat on her eggs. A dart forward of her head brought her 

 beak upon any one of these victims. For what were they hung 

 up ? For traps, I venture to suggest. 



The shrike, no doubt, strikes its prey on the thin skull-bone. 

 Let us say that instinct teaches that here is the spot most vulnera- 

 ble for a beak no larger than that of the shrike. The exposed 

 brain presents a soft eatable morsel, and the shrike eats it en pas- 

 sant. Then it hangs up its booty, and straightway the decaying 

 carcass attracts insects, blue-flies notably, and thereon the shrike 

 feasts. I believe that the shrike is chiefly insectivorous; and its 

 habit of hanging up plunder, making a kind of larder all about its 

 nest, is to call there plenty of large flies, which can be safely 

 picked off as the bird sits on her eggs. True, the shrike hangs up 

 carcasses far from its nest; but to these carcasses it can return 

 frequently for the flies they have attracted. No doubt the instinct 

 which suggests converting the vicinage of the nest to a shamble 

 wiU prompt the bird to hang up whatever is killed by it, in the 

 place nearest at hand. ^ Jtilia McNair Wright. 



Fulton, Mo., April 7. 



Iroquoian Etymologies. 



In an article in The American Anthropologist (vol 1. No. 3) sug- 

 gesting an Algonquian origin for the word " Iroquois," the writer 

 had occasion to criticise a derivation given to this word by Mr. 

 Horatio Hale, in his "Iroquois Book of Rites." This criticism is 

 as follows : — 



"Mr. Hale finds what he believes to be at least a possible origin 

 in the indeterminate form of the Iroquois word garokuia ('pipe,' 

 or 'string [error for " portion"] of tobacco'), ierokioa ('they who 

 smoke,' briefly 'tobacco people'), the Iroquois being well known 

 to have cultivated tobacco. With reference to this derivation. I 

 am not aware that garokwa is used as a verb in any of the Iro- 

 quoian tongues. If not so used, it cannot, of course, have an in- 

 determinate form, ierokioa ; if this form existed, it would mean, 

 not ' ihey who smoke,' but ' one smokes by which.' " 



In the next issue of the quarterly named above, Mr. Hale tried, 

 in "Indian Etymologies," to defend his erroneous derivation 

 which had been called in question by the writer. Among other 

 things equally remarkable, he says, " I have no desire to criticise 

 it, but may be allowed to vindicate my own suggestion from the 

 imputations of ignorance or carelessness, which his objections 

 seem to imply. For this object it is not necessary to claim a pro- 

 found knowledge of the Iroquois tongue, which is one of the most 

 difiScult of languages; but Mr. Hewitt, who has read my volume 

 on the ' Iroquois Book of Rites,' might, perhaps, have reasonably 

 given the author credit for a more careful study of the first prin- 

 ciples of the language than he seems willing to suppose. With 

 reference to my suggested derivation of the word from the verbal 

 form ierokwa (' they who smoke,' reminding one of ' The Tobacco 

 People,' which was a well-known designation of a Huron tribe), 

 Mr. Hewitt remarks, ' I am not aware that garokwa is used as a 

 verb in any of the Iroquoian tongues." If he will refer to the 

 volume just mentioned, he will find, on p. 116 (paragraph 2), the 

 word in question used as a verb in this native composition. The 

 form here employed is denighroghkwaien." 



If denighroghkwaien were an instance of the stem of garokwa 

 used as a verb, it would prove Mr. Hale's position and the justness 

 of his remarks ; but, unfortunately for Mr. Hale, it is not such an 

 instance. This will be shown in the sequel. 



Moreover, Mn Hale's contention that a mere superficial knowl- 

 edge of the tongue is sufficient preparation to enable one to analyze 

 accurately its terms and sentences is inconsistent and self-contra- 

 dictory: since, if it be true that tbe Iroquoian tongue is "one of 

 the most difficult of languages," then, before putting forth any 

 etymologic analysis of its vocables and sentences, it is not only 

 necessary, but imperative, to have a knowledge of its granimatic 

 and morphologic processes sufficiently " profound" to enable the 

 student attempting an etymology to ascertain the several parts of 

 speech, their flexions, and their positions in sentpnce-words, be- 

 cause such a knowledge will prevent him from mistaking the 



