304: Prof. IT. G. Sceleij — On Vogt's Vieiv of tJie ArcJmopteryx. 



a reptile, that the furcula and the sternum were non-existent, and 

 that the form and arrangement of other bones is only paralleled 

 by the structures of Enaliosaurs, Pterosaurs, and Crocodiles. I 

 incline to conclusions exactly the reverse of these. 



Proceeding with the examination of the fore-limb, it is remarked 

 that the humerus with its flattened articular head offers some like- 

 ness to that of crocodiles. If we contrast the humerus, say of a very 

 young Bramah fowl, with that of a crocodile, we become aware that 

 it is possible for a bird to have a humerus more reptilian than that 

 of the ArchcBopteryx, which certainly makes no obvious approach 

 to the form of the bone in crocodiles. The bones of the fore-arm 

 are remarked upon as having the ulna stouter than the radius, but 

 otherwise offering no feature peculiar to either reptiles or birds. 

 The carpus is stated to have been rightly determined by Prof. Owen 

 as a single spherical bone. This the author compares to the single 

 carpal of the Cassowary and Apteryx, but it is important to determine 

 whether the carpal of the Archceopteryx is proximal or distal, since 

 it is well known that the distal carpal of the bird becomes blended 

 with the metacarpus early in life ; hence it seems to me that there 

 is room for further discussion of the bone. Turning to the hand, 

 the author affirms that the manus of Archceopteryx can neither 

 be compared to that of a bird nor that of a Pterosaur, but only to 

 that of a tridactyle lizard. Prof. Owen assigned four digits to the 

 naanus, pointed out that there was no special elongation of a wing- 

 finger as in pterodactyles, and insisted on the ornithic proportions 

 of the hand and mode of attachment of the quill feathers as evidence 

 of a class affinity of ArcJioBopteryx. In this fossil it is evident that 

 there are three digits, similarly three digits exist in living birds, 

 the metacarpal of the pollex is short exactly as in birds, the other 

 two metacarpals are relatively long and of equal length, and the 

 middle metacarjoal is the stouter as in birds, and, so far as I can see, 

 terminates proximally in a rounded carpal bone like that of a bird. 

 The pollex has two phalanges, the second being a sharp claw, com- 

 pressed from side to side, the other two digits have each three 

 phalanges. The difference from living birds in primary structure 

 consists chiefly in the development of the terminal claw to the 

 pollex, the terminal claw to the middle digit, and a claw and a 

 second phalange to the third digit. The author considers that the 

 pollex was free, but of this there is little evidence. He compares 

 the manus to that of GompsognatJius, but the comparison cannot 

 be sustained in detail when the structures are compared bone for 

 bone ; and it is further asserted that the manus of Archceopteryx 

 cannot be compared with that of a bird. I have drawn attention 

 to the points in which it resembles birds and in which it differs 

 from them, but while those differences are remarkable as being of 

 two kinds — (1) the absence of anchylosis in the metacarpals, and 

 (2) the development of additional phalanges — these are not neces- 

 sarily reptilian characters, because the conditions of life exhibit 

 comparatively little variation of function for the extremities among 

 living birds, and in the different orders of both higher and lower 



