1901.J OOMMOH XRV JACK RNI£fiB. 601 



structure of the avian syrinx, but it is so far a valid distinction 

 between the two species of Snipe. The protuberance of this part 

 of the syrinx is further increased by the considerable development 

 of the intrinsic syringeal muscles. In Gallinayo coelestis these 

 muscles are thin and narrow slips, which are attached to the 

 membranous interval between the first two syringeal rings ; these 

 band-like muscles are so slightly marked that they are not visible 

 in a badly preserved syrinx of that bird which I have in my 

 possession. 



G. gallinula shows the greatest contrast in these muscles. In 

 the first place, it has distinctly two pairs of intrinsic muscles. 

 I do not think that the existence of huo pairs of intrinsic syringeal 

 muscles has been recorded in any other genus of Limicoline birds. 

 In any case it is certain that the majority of the genera have either 

 a single pair only of intrinsic muscles, or that these muscles are 

 entirely absent. This comparatively complex musculature of 

 G. gall inula is to be seen in the accompanying drawing (text-fig. 69, 

 p. 6U0), which represents a lateral view of the syrinx. It will be 

 noticed from that drawing that the most purely lateral in position 

 of the two muscles is the larger and that it spreads out in a fan- 

 shaped way at its insertion. Which of the two muscles corre- 

 sponds to the single one of G. ccelestis does not seem to be so 

 certain ; but I am inclined to regard the larger of the two muscles 

 as the one. The other muscle lies more posteriorly. 



Now of all the features that have been dwelt upon in comparing 

 G. ccelestis and G. gaUinula, the syrinx of Scolojiax rusticula most 

 nearly resembles that of the Common Snipe, G. ccelestis. I need 

 not enter into details since the drawings illustrating a former 

 paper ' clearly show the closeness of the correspondence ". 



The few points with which I have dealt in the present communi- 

 cation obviously reopen the question of generic separation among 

 the members of this large genus Scolopax or subfamily Scolopacinse 3 . 

 Mr. Seebohm sfands at the one extreme of ornithological opinion, 

 since he includes all the 2'S species of Snipe and Woodcock in the 

 genus Scolopax, though admitting possible subgeneric divisions. 

 On the other hand, many persons separate Gallinayo (Snipe) from 

 Scolopax (Woodcock), while others retain Limnocryptes for the 

 Jack Snipe and still further subdivide generically the remaining 

 members of the group. 



So little is known at the present time concerning the anatomy 

 of the numerous species of birds which are undoubtedly Snipes or 

 Woodcocks, that it is really premature to attempt any final settle- 

 ment of the question. 1 have not attempted to prejudge it in the 

 foregoing pages, and have therefore used Gallinago for the Snipes, 



1 Above, p. 588. 



' .Since reading tliis paper 1 find that it a only the mule Jack Snipe which 

 hats the more complex syrinx ; the syrinx of the female is like thai of the male 

 .nil with bui a tingle pair of slender mueoloa 

 Prom which Bhynchaa ii ofoourte to be removed 



