288 MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE [Chap. VIL 



specieSj as I hear from Mr. Salvin, in which the lamellte 

 are considerably less developed than in the common 

 duck; but I do not know whether they use their beaks 

 for sifting the water. 



Turning to another group of the same family. In 

 the Egyptian goose (Chenalopex) the beak closely re- 

 sembles that of the common duck; but the lamellae are 

 not so numerous, nor so distinct from each other, nor 

 do they project so much inwards; yet this goose, as I 

 am informed by Mr. E. Bartlett, " uses its bill like a 

 duck by throwing the water out at the corners." Its 

 chief food, however, is grass, which it crops like the com- 

 mon goose. In this latter bird, the lamellae of the upper 

 mandible are much coarser than in the common duck, 

 almost confluent, about 27 in number on each side, and 

 terminating upwards in teeth-like knobs. The palate 

 is also covered with hard rounded knobs. The edges of 

 the lower mandible are serrated with teeth much more 

 prominent, coarser, and sharper than in the duck. The 

 common goose does not sift the water, but uses its beak 

 exclusively for tearing or cutting herbage, for which 

 purpose it is so well fitted, that it can crop grass closer 

 than almost any other animal. There are other species 

 of geese, as I hear from Mr. Bartlett, in which the 

 lamellae are less developed than in the common goose. 



We thus see that a member of the duck family, with 

 a beak constructed like that of the common goose and 

 adapted solely for grazing, or even a member with a beak 

 having less well-developed lamellae, might be converted 

 by small changes into a species like the Egyptian goose, 

 — this into one like the common duck, — and, lastly, into 

 one like the shoveller, provided with a beak almost ex^ 

 clusively adapted for sifting the water; for this bird 



