402 



MH AV. P. PTCHAFT ON THE 



[Mar. 21, 



also peculiar, as is the pelvis. If only on account of these differences 

 it must, 1 think, be allowed to talte hi2;her rank than that accorded 

 by Forbes, though they seem scarcely important enough to demand 

 the formation of a separate family as has been done by Salvin (18) 

 for instance. 



Fig. 2. 



ROCELLARIID/C. 



Diagram to indicate the inter-relationships of the Tubinares. 



Ossifraga is undoubtedly the most highly specialized of the 

 Procellariiuse. With this genus Forbes has placed Fulmarus, 

 PrioceUa (Thalassceca), Thalassceca {Aeipetes), and a little further 

 removed Pacjodroma and Daption. The study of the skeleton 

 seems to confirm the wisdom of this. I cannot, however, express 

 an opinion as to Pacjodroma, this genus not being represented in 

 the Museum's collection of skeletons. Salvin has associated the 

 genera PrioceUa and Thalassceca with the second of Forbes's large 

 groups of genera, containing Bulweria, Majaqueus, Priofinus {Adam- 

 astor), Puffinus, and (Estrelata. 



Halocyxjtena, Pacjodroma, Halohtrna, and Oarrodia are as yet 

 unrepresented among the skeletons under my charge. 



Prion has a skeleton closely resembhng that of Daption and the 

 forms associated therewith, in this and Forbes's papers. It differs 

 from these mainly in the great breadth of the boat-shaped upper 

 jaw and in the short wide palatines ; in its pelvis it most nearly 

 resembles Buhveria and (Estrelata. 



Coming to the Diomedeid^, I regret that of the genera Thalasso- 

 geron and Phoebetria 1 have only seen skulls, but the differences 



