Nos. 2 & 3.] THE AUSTRAL AVIAN RECORD 31 



scheme of the class based on osteological data." Such con- 

 clusions acLieved by a professional osteologist are extremely 

 valuable, and justify the proposition of a scheme formulated 

 from a study of the factors suggested by Shufeldt, and con- 

 firmed by anatomical and osteological data. Regarding these 

 latter, it is worthy of emphasis that Beddard concluded that 

 very little reliance could be placed upon any internal features 

 on account of the variation, and that, accurately speaking, 

 there were no characters upon which special stress could be 

 laid with any security. 



Probably the most scathing condemnation of the worker 

 who is responsible for so much coirfusion in bird classification 

 proceeded from one of his mentors: "Common sense revolts 

 at the acceptance of any scheme which involves so many 

 incongruities" ; and again : " This view was virtually aban- 

 doned by him (the author of these incongruous ideas) within 

 little more than twelve months ; but that fact has not hindered 

 some writers from continuing to use these terms as if they 

 had any taxonomic signification." 



We had written before seeing that note : " It is displeasing 

 to record that avian systematists have continued the accept- 

 ance without criticism of the incongruous items, many of 

 which were almost immediately abandoned by their introducer." 



Why avian systematics should be considered incapable of 

 comprehension by the normal student we are unable to under- 

 stand. It is admitted that the morphology of birds must be 

 considered in connection with their classification, but we want 

 to emphasise the fact that it is absolutely impossible to frame 

 a scheme upon morphological characters alone, and that only 

 a full consideration of superficial features complemented by 

 anatomical details will prove successful. There is as much, 

 or even more, convergence in the latter as in the former. The 

 serious student will note that only in the cases which have 

 puzzled him has anatomy been successful in assistance, but 

 when the puzzle was very complete anatomy has failed just 

 as absolutely. Ornithologists have as much vahd material to 

 deal with as ornithotomists. Thus the division of birds into 

 CariyiatcB and Ratitce is indefensible, from any point of view, 



