536 DR. R. W.SHUFELDT ON THE COMPARATIVE OSTEOLOGY [ Apr. 27, 
we would expect, a larger bone than the os furcaula of Arachno- 
thera magna, yet the characters are identically the same, so much 
so that were the bone in the latter brought up to the size of the 
one in the former, I very much doubt that any ornithotomist 
could, with certainty, tell them apart. Indeed, the os furcula 
possesses in all the passerine birds here under examination 
the same form and characters. When we say it is U-shaped 
in outline, has a large, transversely compressed, and up- 
turned hypocleidium, slender limbs, and expanded clavicular 
heads, we have said about all there is to be said in regard 
to it. 
All these birds have coracoids and scapule of the shoulder-girdle 
very much alike indeed—that is, apart from the matter of size. 
The morphological variations are very insignificant and offer 
little or nothing of taxonomic value. It is interesting to note, 
however, that irrespective of the length or form of the beak, we 
find in all the Meliphagide that the lower external angle of the 
expanded part of a coracoid is produced outwards as a distinct, 
flattened process, best seen in the short-billed species, though 
also well-marked in Acanthorhynchus, which Dr. Richmond informs 
me is a genus belonging to the family Meliphagide. Now, in 
A rachno® -ra@, and in all the Nectar iniide and Ccerebide at hand, 
that anjle of the coracoid is more or less truncated, but whether 
this points correctly to any Sassi relationships of the families 
named, it would be difficult to say * 
Representatives of all these niles at hand, as in all true 
Passeres I believe, have at each shoulder-jomt an os hwmero- 
scapulare, and it varies but very little in size and form in the 
species examined. When we come to examine the sternum of 
Arachnothera magna and compare it with the sterna of other 
species of Nectariniide, and with the other bird-fornis enumerated 
in this paper, we once more realize that this part of the skeleton 
is likewise all passerine in its morphology, presenting only a few 
slight differences for the various species. Still, apart from the 
variations in size, these differences are more or less constant, and 
in any case anrisialihle with respect to the sternum Be the 
species possessing them—that is, the species which have thus far 
been named in this paper. The sternum in all exhibits a number 
of characters which all the sterna present in common, as the 
large, upturned trihedral manubrium, with its bifurcated free 
extremity; the lofty costal processes with the hemapophysial 
facets on the posterior borders; the marked concavity of the 
* Without going into details. and judging from the skeletons alone, I would 
remark that the Australian genus of birds named Acanthor hynchus which have been 
referred to the Meliphagide possess skeletal characters which in the main agree 
better with the corresponding ones in Arachnothera than they do with any ot “the 
same characters as seen in the short-billed Meliphagids. But_two species of 
Acanthorhynchus are known to me, A. fenuirostris and A. superciliosus, and these 
I have never had the opportunity of comparing in the flesh with the meliphagidine 
birds of Australia and New Zealand. 
