1892.] Zoology. 1041 
quite as familiar with them as he is himself. The facts of the case are 
that my purposely brief description, which Dr. Shufeldt criticizes so 
harshly and unnecessarily, is substantially a condensation’ of MacGilli- 
vray's—my knowledge of the subject being based chiefly on the latter 
and Mr. F. A. Lucas’ later dissections of thirteen species‘ (instead of 
one, as in the case of Dr. Shufeldt’s “extensive dissections”), 
Dr. Shufeldt’s peculiar notion that the swifts are more nearly related 
to the swallows than to the humming-birds, first set forth by him in 
1883, was so thoroughly “exploded” by his reviewers’ that his resur- 
rection of so dead an issue surprisesme. Apparen tly he is not familiar 
with the literature of the subject, for, if he were posted, he would know 
that leading authorities on avian comparative anatomy are overwhelm- 
ingly if not unanimously against his side of the question. I would 
therefore suggest that he consult Firbringer, Parker, Garrod and 
Gadow, and thus discover how much he has to learn regarding the 
matter which he handles with so much assurance. Even a careful 
perusal of Huxley (whom, by some strange hallucination, he imagines 
his abettor) may also prove instructive to him.—Roperr RIDGWAY. 
“Cf. Proceedings U. S. Nat. Mus. Vol. xiv., No. 848, pp. 169-172, pl. iv. 
°Cf. Stejneger, The Auk., July, 1886, pp- 44-406, and Lucas, The Auk., October, 
- 1886, pp. 444-451. 
