314 MR. AV. P. PYCRAFT ON THE [Apr. 15, 



IlerjMotheres, ai-e now i-educed to qnite vestigial propoi'tions, the 

 vai-ious stages in this I'eduction being i-eadily traceable through 

 Cerchneis and Hierofalco (PL XXXIII. fig. 1) to Falco. 



For fui'ther evidence, or rathei- clues, as to the origin of the 

 Falconifoi'mes — from an osteological standpoint — one would turn 

 natuiully, to the Sei-pentaiiidee. In so fai- as the skull is concei-ned, 

 this would pi-ove disappointing. In its general character it 

 certainly resembles that of Cariama, but in details it is thoroughly 

 Accipitrine. The ventral view of the palate resembles that of 

 Aquila ; whilst in the form of the maxillo- palatine processes, 

 especially with regard to the great size of the antrum of Highmore, 

 it approaches Leitcojyteroiis, Antenor, and Parahuteo. The palate 

 is indirectly desmognathous. The maxillo- palatines are separated 

 only by a mere chink, and the desmogiiathism is effected by the 

 ossified nasal septum, fusing with the dorsal aspect of the maxillo- 

 palatines. In the presence of fvmctional basipterygoid processes 

 it differs from all the Falconiformes save the Cathartidte. In 

 tlie trunk skeleton we have already pointed out many Ciconiine 

 characters, which are not difficult to account for if, as Beddard 

 and others hold, the Ciconiidee and Gruidte may claim a com- 

 munity of descent. 



It is certain that the evidence of the skeleton, supported by 

 the facts which have come to light concerning the myology and 

 other soft parts, demands that the Oathai'tidfe and Serpentariida3 

 must be included with the Falconifoiines, though repi-esenting, 

 each, a distinct sub-order. With the Sti-iges the i-everse is the 

 case, Sti'ikingly similar as is the skeleton of the Owls, in many 

 charactei'S, to that of the Accipitl'es, it is nevertheless certain 

 that the nearest allies of this gi-oup must be sought among the 

 "Picarian" birds. On osteological evidence alone, however, it is 

 doubtful whether the Striges would ever have been sepaiuted 

 from the Accipitres. The anatomy of the soft parts, however, 

 seems to prove conclusively the justice of this separation. The 

 osteological i-esemblances must be regarded as homoplastic — oi-, as 

 some would have it, pi'obably, kinetogenetic. 



The relation which the Oathartidse, Serpentariida?, and Striges, 

 severally, bear one to another and to the Accipitres proper, having 

 now been briefly summarized, we may pass on to the discussion 

 of the inter-i-elationships of the last-mentioned group. 



This exceedingly difticult problem has lately been attacked by 

 Di'. Suschkin. The main i-esults of his study have ah'eady 

 appeared ^ " *, and, from what he has f oi-eshadowed, it is not 

 too much to say that his complete Monograph will prove one of 

 the most valuable and complete contributions to the osteology 

 of Birds evei- published. 



1 " Beitrage zuv Classification des Tagraubvogel mit zugrundeleguug des osteo- 

 logischen Merkinale." Zool. Anzeig. xxii. 1899. 



2 " Systematisclie Ergebnisse osteologisches Untersuchungeli einiger Tagraub- 

 vogel." Zool. Anzeig. Bd. xxiii. 1900. 



3 " Weitere sj^stematische Ergebnisse vergleichendosteologisches Untersuchuugen 

 der Tagraubvogel." Zool. Anzeig. Bd. xxiii. 1900. 



