USOT OSTEOLOGY OF ARACHNOTHERA MAGNA . 527 
4, On the Comparative Osteology of the Passerine Bird 
Arachnothera magna. By R. W. Suurenpt, M.D., 
C.M.Z.S. 
[Received March 30, 1909. ] 
(Plate LX VIIL*) 
A number of years ago Mr. F, E. Beddard kindly sent me for 
examination, from the Society’s Collections, some twelve or 
thirteen alcoholic specimens of birds representing a variety of 
genera and species from several parts of the world. 
Tt was only very lately that I could give this valuable material 
the attention it deserved, and upon comparing it with the list 
submitted the following forms were found to be at my 
disposal :— 
No. No. 
289. Cyanerpes cyanea. 306. Cereba chloropyga. 
345. Arachnothera longirostris. | 718. Acanthorhynchus sp. ? 
318. Jr magna. 365. Prosthemadera nove- 
AQT. Leptocoma gray. hollandic«. 
340. Cinnyris chalybeus 702. Entomyza cyanotis. 
426. Diglossa baritula. 725. Acanthogenys rufigularis. 
500. Anthreptes malaccensis. 712. Climacteris scandens. 
All these specimens had been in strong spirit for many years; 
some of them for perhaps twenty years, or even longer. ‘This 
treatment had very much hardened all the soft tissues and 
muscles, and, as some of the species are very small and delicate, 
the labour of cleaning the skeletons was considerable, as 1 know 
from the fact that I performed the entire task myself. In some 
instances, in too many unfortunately, the extremely minute and 
fragile bones—in such a species, for example, as Cinnyris chalybeus 
—simply refused to hold together. Some of the specimens had 
been rather roughly eviscerated, thus injuring the skeleton in 
the neighbourhood of the incision. One or two were headless, 
and in the case of all some enterprising and enthusiastic 
ornithotomist had cut down to examine the xiphoidal extremity 
of the sternum, a perfectly justifiable operation, by the way, and 
doubtless to ascertain whether it was ‘‘ notched” or otherwise, 
that is, passerine or trochilidine. Aside from these various 
mishaps, which are comparatively few when one comes to think 
how long all these specimens had been in the hands of science, 
this material as prepared offers not a little worthy of study and 
comparison. 
The list has been kindly looked over by Dr, Chas. W. Richmond, 
* For explanation of the Plate see p. 544. 
