Prof.H. G. Seeley — On VogVs View of the Archceopteryx. 303 



and know that it approximates towards birds. Far be it from me to 

 pretend to know the hidden workings of another man's mind, but 

 since the characters of the ilium of Archceopteryx have undergone no 

 change in the mean time, it is only reasonable to infer that Professor 

 Owen's ideas still remain what they were twenty years ago. More- 

 over, the pelvic region of Archceopteryx, so far as it is known, does 

 not make the slightest approximation to that of a Dinosaur, and there- 

 fore the avian similitudes of the dinosaurian pelvis can, in the absence 

 of fresh evidence, in no way influence our interpretation of the 

 ArcJiiBopteryx. First, the bone in certain Pterodactyles which many 

 writers have regarded as a pubis, and which has in some species 

 a bow shape not unlike a furculum, is really the pre-pubic bone, 

 a separate bony element from the pubis, as, I imagine, was demon- 

 strated many years ago wben I first suggested this name for it. 

 Now this bone in its more ordinary divided form rather recalls 

 marsupial bones of the mammal than any other structure ; and 

 in the dinosaurian pelvis the pre-pubic element is not separated 

 from the pubis, and retains the condition seen in a less developed 

 degree in birds, especially such birds as the Apteryx, in which I 

 first noticed it, and the Geococcyx, in which it was recognized by 

 Professor Marsh. Now, to suppose that this process, in those birds 

 in which it can be recognized, is the remnant of the separate pre- 

 pubic bone, or of the united pi-e-pubic bones of pterodactyles, is a 

 supposition, in favour of which it would be hard to adduce any- 

 thing. But certain difficulties of an a priori kind suggest themselves 

 in the circumstance that the pelvis of the fossil was relatively nai'- 

 row, and the spread of the supposed furculum is wide ; that the 

 bones of the pelvis of Archcsopteryx are slender, while this bone 

 is remarkably strong. I do not proceed to discuss the bone, because 

 that ought to require an inspection of the second specimen ; but its 

 forward position on the slab, and the width between the fi'ee ends 

 and the broad V- shape, seem sufficient justification for Professor 

 Owen's interpretation. It therefore appears to me that the effort to 

 set up reptilian affinities in the interpretation of this bone, and 

 thus to detract from the avian character of the skeleton, is unwar- 

 ranted by the facts. Having got rid of the clavicle and the sternum, 

 it naturally follows that the author should compare the shoulder 

 girdle of the Archceopteryx with that of the Crocodile ; but this com- 

 parison, however delusive it may seem in presence of the woodcuts 

 which are constructed to support it, fails altogether when we turn 

 from diagrammatic figures to the crocodile skeleton on the one hand, 

 and the photograph of the ArchcBOpteryx on the other. It matters 

 nothing to be told that the sternum disappears among Ichthyosaurs 

 and Plesiosaurs, or that the coracoids meet in the middle line in 

 those groups, or that some Plesiosaurs have no clavicles; the answer 

 is obvious, that neither Ichthyosaurs nor Plesiosaurs are flying 

 animals, and since function in each class governs the evolution of 

 structure, it is obviously inconsequent to seek in a swimming type for 

 structures which flight would develope. Professor Vogt comes to 

 the conclusion that the shoulder girdle of Archceopteryx is that of 



