FEBRUARY 8, 1884.] 
mitted by meteorologists, that in the latitudes 0°-6° 
the deflection is also too small to admit of cyclones; 
and really I know of none. And even outside India, 
and the seas around it, there are scarcely cyclones in 
latitudes lower than 10°. 
Thus, what Mr. Davis calls ‘equatorial’ should be 
ealled ‘tropical’ cyclones. If anybody wishes to 
mention * equatorial cyclones,’ Jet him first prove their 
existence. So long as this is not done, meteorologists 
having a mind for exact scientific terms will hold to 
my opinion. A. WOEIKOF. 
St. Petersburg, Jan. 7, 1884. 
I shall be well pleased if so distinguished a meteor- 
ologist as Dr. Woeikof finds no other points needing 
correction in my papers on storms than this one. 
That I fully agree, as to the facts,with him and with 
Dr. Taylor, who first, so far as I know, states this 
matter in connection with its cause,! is shown in my 
seventh paper (this volume, p. 40); but, while my 
use of the objectionable term was accidental rather 
than deliberate, there is, perhaps, little to choose 
between ‘equatorial’ and ‘tropical,’ both of which 
occur in this connection in my papers: for, if the first 
apply in strictness only to points in latitude 0°, the 
second is equally limited in its exact meaning to 
points in latitude 234°; and if ‘tropical’ has come 
to mean ‘within or between the tropics,’ so ‘equa- 
torial’ may mean ‘near the equator.’ Tropenzone 
of the Germans is not to be translated ‘ tropical zone,’ 
but ‘torrid zone;’ and in English, ‘ tropical’ should 
not be applied in an exact nomenclature to the equa- 
torial low pressures of the doldrums, as in Buchan’s 
writings, but rather to the high pressures of the 
horse-latitudes, as Ferrel uses it; and ‘tropics,’ when 
properly rendered into German, would be wende- 
kreisen, or it might be paraphrased into die polar- 
grenzen der passate. Inasmuch, then, as the truly 
tropical belts of the ocean are best characterized by 
regions of high pressure, free from cyclonic condi- 
tions, except where storms from lower latitudes cross 
them near their western shores; and as the inter- 
tropical rains of the doldrums are not called ‘ tropical,’ 
but * equatorial,’ even when off of the equator, and by 
Dr. Woeikof himself, — it can hardly be considered a 
serious error to speak of the cyclones, which begin 
in the doldrums, as equatorial also. 
Cambridge, Jan. 30, 1884. W. M. Davis. 
Osteology of the cormorant. 
Mr. Jeffries’ answer in Science (iii. 59), to my let- 
ter in a former number of this paper (ii. 822), caused 
me genuine surprise. , His suggestion that the occip- 
ital style of the cormorant ‘is the ossified tendon of 
some of the extensor muscles of the neck,’ made in 
a former communication (ii. 739), is here, apparently, 
announced as his conviction, and Selenka is intro- 
duced to sustain the statement. Now, Iam informed 
by Mr. Jeffries, that, ‘‘in view of such eminent au- 
thority, it would seem that something more than 
simple denial is required to upset a statement ac- 
cepted by anatomists for many years;’’ and a few 
lines farther on, I am said to acknowledge my mis- 
take, because I ignored the point. Permit me to say, 
that nothing of the kind has been accepted by anat- 
omists for many years. I met this statement by a 
simple denial, in order to save space in the columns 
1 On tropical hurricanes (Brit. assoc. report, 1852, pt. 2, 31). 
Herschel used this in his Meteorology, but failed to do justice to 
Taylor’s explanation of how a deflective force arises from the 
earth’s rotation, and omits mention of the effect of the conserva- 
tion of areas, which Taylor recognizes as of essential importance. 
SCIENCE. 
143 
of Science; but, if Mr. Jeffries must be informed as 
to what the occipital style of the cormorant is, I 
would inform him that this bone is not an ossifica- 
tion in any tendon of the extensors of the neck, be- 
cause it is situated, as we know, in the median plane 
of the skeleton, at a mid-point on the occipital ridge. 
The tendons of the extensors in a bird’s neck, which 
are inserted at the occiput, are in pairs, their inser- 
tion being bilateral; and their tendons are never in- 
serted in the median plane: consequently this style 
cannot be an ossification of any of them. On the 
contrary, it is an ossification of the fascia between 
the extensors of the neck and what may be compared 
to the ligamentum nuchae. 
As Mr. Jeffries seems to be anxious about the posi- 
tion in which I drew this occipital style, I would call 
his attention to the fact that it is shown as occupy- 
ing its proper site, only tipped up somewhat, as it 
was on my dried skull. Such license is perfectly 
permissible in anatomical delineation, and is seen in 
the illustrations throughout the literature of anat- 
omy. It often shows the parts to better advantage: 
and, in structures as well known as this style is, no 
explanation is necessary. Acquainted, as I am, with 
the anatomy of this ‘nuchal style’ and its anatomical 
relations, I must again acknowledge that I am still 
ignorant of the physiology, or really the function, of 
this style, or why it should occur in a cormorant and 
not in other birds nearly related. 
As to Mr. Jeffries’ concern at my not being, to his 
mind, thoroughly informed upon the homologies of 
the patella in birds, I would invite his attention to 
a paper of mine written some time before my ‘ Osteol- 
ogy of the cormorant’ appeared. ‘To show that I 
have always agreed with the eminent authorities he 
alludes to for my benefit, in the co-existence of a pa- 
tella and an elongated cneiial process of the tibia in 
most divers, I refer to my article entitled ‘ The num- 
ber of bones at present known in the pectoral and 
pelvie limbs of birds,’ in which I say, ‘‘I know of 
but two free bones that occur about the knee-joint. 
The first of these is the patella; and this may co-exist 
with the cnemial ridge of tibia, as in Colymbus 
(Owen). The other is a free sesamoid found in some 
birds in a notch at the head of the fibula (Speotyto)”’ 
(Amer. nat., November, 1882, 894). I repeat, that 
‘I find myself misquoted’ by Mr. Jeffries, in his re- 
marks upon my paper, ‘more than once;’ that is to 
say, he has failed to include statements falsely at- 
tributed to my article in the customary quotation- 
marks. I donot say, (1) that I figure this style ‘ in 
situ,’ nor (2) positively atlirm that it has never been 
figured before (ii. 739), but do say, ‘*‘I do not be- 
lieve we have a figure showing the site of this bone- 
let’ (ii. 640). Selenka’s and Eyton’s figures had 
slipped my mind for the moment, as their works had 
not been available for a year or more. Furthermore 
(3), I do not refer to Professor Owen to have him 
authorize any thing in regard to Podiceps, but only 
to the patella of the loon, as any one accustomed 
to anatomical reading can see by referring to my ar- 
ticle on the ‘ Osteology of the cormorant ’ (ii. 640). 
R. W. SHUFELDT. 
Upperglow of the skies in relation to halos 
and coronas. 
These striking and beautiful atmospheric phenom- 
ena, which have manifested themselves over the entire 
globe, have attracted much attention, and been mi- 
nutely described by correspondents in various coun- 
tries. But there is one feature, which, although 
incidentally noticed by some writers, has attracted but 
little attention. I allude to the fact, that, wherever 
