ON THE ANATOMY OF GRUIFORM BIRDS. 413 



31. Anatomical Notes on the Gruiforni Birds Animus 

 giganteus Bonap., and Rhinoclietiis karju. By P. 

 Chalmees Mitchell, D.Sc, LL.D., F.R.S., F.Z.S., 

 Secretary to the Society. 



[Received May 11, 1915 : Read Maj' 25, 1915.] 



(Text-figures 1-5.) 



Index. 



Anatomy: Ta^e 



Pterylosis 114 



Viscera 414 



Muscles 415 



Osteology 421 



SXSTEMATIC : 



A. giganteus close to A. scolopaceits 413 



Relations of J.rfl)HMS 413 



In July 1914 the Society purchased from a dealer a bird of 

 unknown source, recognised by Mr. D. Seth-Smith, our Ciu-ator 

 of Birds, as being new to our Collection. It turned out to be an 

 example of Aramus giganteus Bonap., the Limpkin, Clucking Hen, 

 or Northern Courlan (^r«H^^^.s;r(■ciw,s Bartram of the Brit. Mus. 

 Catalogue, vol. xxiii. p. 238). It is the northern form of the 

 Courlan of S. America, Aramus scolo2Kiceus , and is a native of 

 Florida, the Antilles, and Jamaica, somewhat doubtfully accepted 

 as a distinct species becavise of its larger size, and of the extension 

 of the white stidpes, confined in the Courlan to the head and 

 neckj to the back, wing-coverts, and lower parts. The anatomy 

 of A. scolopaceus has been studied chiefly by Garrod (P. Z. S. 1876, 

 p. 275) and by myself (P. Z. S. 1901, p. 629). As I could find no 

 record of the anatomical examination of A. giganteus, 1 took the 

 opportunity of dissecting the Society's example when it died after 

 living for a few months in the Gardens ; and as I had formerly 

 dissected A. scolopaceus along with an example of the Kagu 

 (jRhinochetas kagu), I renewed the comparison, by dissecting at 

 the same time another example of the Kagu. 



It may be convenient to state at once the general conclusion, 

 that, so far as anatomical characteis are concerned, A. giganteus 

 resembles A. scolopaceus very closely indeed. It would not have 

 surprised me to find such slight differences as I noted between two 

 individuals of the same species. I do not suggest, however, that 

 the two species should be merged. The more experience I gain 

 of avian anatomy, the more I am convinced that sj^stematists 

 are well advised when they rely, at least with regard to the 

 discrimination of species and genera, more on those superficial 

 characteis that they can observe in the series of museum 

 collections, than on the uncertain indications aftbi'ded by the 

 presence or absence of this or that muscle. 



29* 



