a 
EDITORIAL GLHANINGS. 231 
line apparatus in a correlated substitutional modification for the perform- 
ance of the static and equilibrative functions, and thus further support the 
author’s views. 
AT a subsequent meeting of the Linnean Society, held on April 21st, Mr. 
W. P. Pycraft read a paper “‘ On the Morphology of the Owls: Part I. Pterylo- 
graphy.” In this, the first instalment of a series of papers on the affinities 
and phylogeny of the group, the pterylographic characters were alone con- 
sidered, with descriptions of adults, nestlings, and embryos. The author 
remarked that so far as the distribution of the feather-tracts is concerned, 
the Owls resemble the Accipitres more nearly than any other group. They 
differ from them and resemble the Caprimulgi in the distribution of the 
adult and nestling down. The microscopical structure, however, of these 
down-feathers is accipitrine rather than caprimulgine. The nestling of the 
Accipitres is clothed by two kinds of down-feathers, for which the names 
* pre-plumule ” and “ pre-penne ” were suggested ; the nestling Owl and 
Nightjar are clothed only by down of the latter kind. The form of the 
external aperture of the ear seems to have been originally subject to 
variations, the most successful of which have become fixed by selection. In 
some cases there is a marked asymmetry, which may either be confined to 
the membranes surrounding the aperture or may extend to the skull itself. 
The author considered that the facts disclosed by a study of the pterylosis 
might justify a slight revision and rearrangement of some of the genera. 
Mr. Ernest W. L. Hott, at a meeting of the Zoological Society of 
London, held on April 19th, read a paper on the breeding of the Dragonet 
(Callionymus lyra) in the Marine Biological Association’s Aquarium at 
Plymouth, and made some remarks on the significance of the sexual 
dimorphism of. this fish, the courtship and pairing of which were described 
in detail. The female was described as a promiscuous polyandrist, and 
seemed to exercise no sort of choice, taking the nearest male which 
appeared to be in a condition to further her object. ‘The males were much 
more numerous, as well as larger, than the females. The brilliant yellow 
colour of the mature male was due to an excess of yellow pigment, which 
diffused into the skin. It had an acrid smell, and was highly irritating to 
the salivary glands. The blue colour was due to the optical properties of 
masses of “ reflecting tissue ” over a background of black chromatophores. 
Mr. Holt considered that the large fins and bright colours of the male of 
the Dragonet had been evolved by sexual selection proceeding on the lines 
of conspicuousness rather than on those of esthetic charms, since the male 
seemed to be unable to see the female except at a very short distance, and 
