ANATOMY OF THE SHOE-BILL. 699 



tendons of the wing ; the absence of intrinsic muscles in the 

 syrinx ; the long lacrymals ; the fusion of the internal lamina} 

 of the palatines ; the shell-like pai-occipital processes ; the anchy- 

 losis of the clavicle to the keel of the sternum ; the shape 

 of the head of the humerus. But these can j)robably be best 

 explained either as convergent modifications in birds which, 

 after all, are not very far apart in the system, or the common 

 inheritance of Steganopods and their immediate allies. Sub- 

 sequent writers on Balmniceps appear to have been dominated 

 by the wish to prove Gould incorrect. J. Reinhardt (37) in 



1860 came to the conclusion that the nearest ally of Balce- 

 nicejjs was Scojnis, and that Scopus and Balcenicejis together 

 were nearer the Storks than the Herons. He appreciated that 

 the pterylosis, especially of the neck, was similar in Balcenicejys, 

 Scopus and Storks and markedly diflered from that of Cancroma 

 and the other Herons. He attached importance to the pectina- 

 tion on the claw of Cmio^ovia and the Herons : noted that 

 there was an approach to it in Scopus, but did not recognize 

 that it also occurred in Balcenicep)s. He noted that the inter- 

 orbital septum was complete in Scopics and Storks, incomplete in 

 Cancroma and Herons, but had not information on that point 

 in the case of Balceniceps. He compared the bills in considerable 

 detail, and pointed out essential points in which Bakmicejjs and 

 Scopus agreed, and differed from Cancroma. Parker (33) read his 

 great paper before Bartlett's contribution, but as the latter was 

 actually published first, it is more correct chronologically to take 

 Bartlett (1) first, although, curiously enough, the authors quote 

 one another, and each relies on the other's opinion. Bartlett in 



1861 made the interesting discovery that Balceniceps had a pair 

 of large powder-down patches on the back, and this for him 

 settled the Ardeine affinities of the bird. He included, however, 

 Euryp)yga amougst the Herons, and I have shewn {st^pra p. 645) 

 that in the present state of our knowledge, the presence of 

 powder-down patches is no conclusive evidence as to affinity. 



I cannot understand why it has been assumed and stated by 

 writers who had an opportunity of reading the memoir, that 

 W. K. Parker's osteological examination proved Balceniceps to be 

 a Heron and not a Stork. In the Introduction to his memoir, he 

 made the following general statement : — " It is to the stilted, 

 wading group of scavengers that Balceniceps belongs, being one 

 of the Arclece affines, and therefore intimately related to the 

 White Stork, the Marabout, and the Adjutant. Its nearest 

 relations, however, are the South American Boat-bill {Cancroma 

 cochlearia) and the Little South African Umbre (Scojms umhretta)," 

 In a footnote to his paper he refers to Bartlett's discovery as 

 " having proved beyond all dispute, that the Balcenicejjs, like the 

 Boat-bill, is essentially a Heron." But these are ex cathedra 

 statements. He also gives a list of what he regards as " Ardeine 

 genera"; — including Ciconicc, Lejytojytilus, Mycteria, Anastomus, 

 Aramus, Arclea, Botaurus, Heroclias, Nycticorax, Scopus, 



