138 THE ZOOLOGIST. 
EDITORIAL GLEANINGS. 
At the meeting of the Zoological Society held on Feb. 15th, Mr. W. 
P. Pycraft read the first of a series of contributions to the Osteology of 
Birds. The present part (of which the following is an abstract) related to 
the Steganopodes:— 
‘«« The fact that in the Tropic-birds, Cormorants, Gannets, and Frigate- 
birds all the toes are united by a common web, has led to the belief that 
these forms are closely related; they form the suborder Steganopodes or 
Totipalmate of authors. A comparison of the osteology of the group con- 
firms this opinion. Phalacrocorax may be taken as the type of the sub- 
order, which may be divided into three sections according to the form of 
the basitemporal plate. In Phalacrocorax and Plotus this is seen in its 
most generalised form, and agrees with that of the Ciconia. Sula is the 
nearest ally of the Cormorants, as is shown by the close resemblance in the 
form of the fused palatines, and of the pectoral and pelvic girdles and 
limbs. Sula, it is evident by the form of the basitemporal plate, leads to 
Fregata. The Pelicans resemble the Cormorants and Gannets in the form 
of the palatines—which are, however, more highly modified than in these 
families—as also of the sternum, lachrymal, and nasal hinge. Phaéthon is 
the most aberrant of the group, but agrees most nearly with the Pelicans 
in the form of the basitemporal plate, which differs from that of the pre- 
ceding families. Its sternum, though distinctly Steganopodous, differs in 
that the free end of the clavicle does not articulate with the coracoid by a 
flattened facet. Phalacrocorax, it is contended, must be regarded as the 
typical Steganopod. Sula and Fregata fall into places on the one side, 
Pelecanus and Phaéthon on the other side of this family. Phaéthon and 
Fregata represent the two extremes of the suborder ; they alone retain the 
vomer, and in them the modification of the palatines and of the maxillo- 
palatine processes is comparatively slight.” 
Tue Annual Report, 1896-7, of the Director of the Field Columbian 
Museum, Chicago, has reached this country. We read that very much — 
work—essential to a museum— has been done in identification, inventorying, 
cataloguing, and labelling; work that, as the Director remarks, “ is un- 
interesting, plodding, and tiresome, with nothing that appeals to the 
