Ill 



likewise saw Garrod's studies of the Petrels appear, and finding 

 them 'holorhinal,' he parted them from the 'schizorhiiial ' Clulls 

 and related forms exhibiting a similar character. ' 



Other papers and works of minor taxonomic iniportaiuc (dii- 

 tinued to be put forth, when in 1882 appeared tlic \cry extensive 

 and meritorious work of Forbes dealing with the entire aiiatoniy 

 of many forms of the Tubinares, and a thorough study of their 

 probable affinities."' 



Forbes divi.led the Tubinares into two famih-es. the ( hraniti.hr 

 and the Proccllarii.hc whicli last was sub.h'vi.lcl int.. the two 

 subfamih'cs 1 )i(.inc(lcina' and the Procclhiriina-. Osteology of 

 the Petrels and their allies fille.l a ].ronHnent ]^Uwv in this able 

 production, and 1 shall tmiuently have occasion in tlu^ ])resent 

 brief article to refer to it, es})ccially in instaiK c> wlu ic its author 

 had skeletons of .species which the writcM- has not been able to 



Another classification is seen in that of Dr. Stcjneger whi<'li 

 was published in the Standard Xatnral llist.M-y .Ho>toni in isv,. 

 The following ..elected from Ins scheme will >how where he places 

 the M^il.inares: 



Subclass \y. Snper-Order III. Order W. Sn].erfam. V. 



I'hirhipidura^ ' Knornithes ' ( Vcomorpha- \ Pn.cellaroidea'. 



In the Procellaroi.h.e are arrayed the three fanniies 1 )ioni<Mlida«, 

 Pr(.cellarii(he, and the Pelecanoidida^ Tlii> writer pla-o in hi. 

 .scheme the Tubinares wi<lely removed from the Stegano])odes, 

 which I believe to be a mistake, and a non-appreciation of the 

 morphological character, of the latter gn.np of Birds. 



In his great work npon the anatomy and taxonomy of birds, 

 Fiirbringer makes th.> Proceliariiformes an " I ntenne.liate . Suborder ' 



