Frof, H. O. 8eeleij — On Vogt's View of the Archwoptenjx, 305 



vertebrata a considerable range of variation is found in correspond- 

 ing parts of the skeleton. The form and curvature of the femur 

 and the modification of its proximal end is avian, the tibia is also 

 avian, as is the fibula, which is reduced to a needle-like splint, 

 anchylosed to it as in living birds and pterodactyles. The hind- 

 foot, including the metatarsus, is avian. The author then sums 

 up the facts with regard to the skeleton, and concludes that " the 

 head, neck, thorax, ribs, tail, shoulder girdle, and whole fore-limb, 

 are plainly constructed as in reptiles. The pelvis has probably 

 more agreement with that of reptiles than with that of birds. The 

 hind-foot is that of a bird. Eeptilian affinities therefore prevail in 

 the skeleton above all others." 



This resurrection of the views of Wagner as enunciated on the 

 discovery of the first Archceopteryx appears to result from the way 

 in which the subject is approached. 1^ Archceopteryx is a reptile, it is 

 a subjective reptile created by Professor Vogt by means of theoretical 

 considerations which can hardly be accepted without discussion ; but 

 the objective Archceopteryx seems to show nothing more reptilian 

 than might have been anticipated in an extinct animal devoid of 

 the latest specializations of osteology which have been developed 

 in living birds, and have come therefore to be regarded as class 

 characters, and probably as more important than they really are. 

 It would have been a reversing of one of the oldest canons of 

 natural history to find well-developed plumage associated with a 

 reptilian skeleton. If the affirmation had been sustained, it would not 

 have helped evolution in the least ; for it would have interposed the 

 anomaly that, with a skeleton alleged to be essentially reptilian, 

 feathers as well developed as can be found in the existing class of 

 birds coexisted. There would have been no transition here, but an 

 incongruity greater than that of a less noble animal clothed in the 

 skin of a lion. The feathers, too, are shown to be arranged as in 

 birds, the wing in its outline is compared by the author to that of 

 a fowl, " the remiges of the wing are fixed to the ulnar edge of the 

 arm and to the manus, and covered for nearly half their length with 

 a fine filiform down." It is thought that the base of the neck may 

 perhaps have carried a rufi" like that of a condor, but to me this seems 

 more than doubtful. The tibia was clothed with feathers down the 

 whole of its length, as in the falcons. Each caudal vertebra carried 

 a pair of lateral retrices. All the rest of the body, the head, neck 

 and trunk, are said to have been evidently naked and unprovided 

 with feathers. To this last view, exception might fairly be taken, 

 since the decomposition of the soft parts of the body would have 

 carried with them the covering if such existed. Indeed, dead sea- 

 birds on our shores often retain, when decomposition has advanced 

 far. exactly the same feathers as are seen in this fossil. 



The author concludes that the Archceopteryx can neither be ranked 

 among reptiles nor birds, but that it forms a marked intermediate 

 type, " Bird in its integument and feet, Archceopteryx is reptile in 

 all the rest of its organization, and its structure can only be under- 

 stood b}' admitting the evolution of birds by a progressive develop- 

 ment from certain types of reptiles." 



DECADE II. — VOL. VIII. — NO. VII. 20 



