318 



DE. B. W. SHUFELDT S MOBPHO LOGICAL 



it also presents here and there in its economy traces of a Cla- 

 matorial type, such as is shown in its free lacrymal bone and a 

 few other minor points. I fail to find anything in its mor- 

 phology that especially connects it ^vith the Sirundinidce. As 

 I anticipated, however, the brief synopsis of its structural cha- 

 racters goes to show, in support of the views abeady elsewhere 

 expressed by Garrod, that Ampelis has an organization of an 

 average Oscinine bird, by which I mean not typically so, and 

 consequently will be of service here as an aid to comparison as 

 we proceed. 



Osteology of Teogo>' ^lExiCAyus jl>"d Teogox pi-ella. 



As will be seen by my tabulated list of material, I am indebted 

 to Dr. Sclater for two excellent skeletons of these Trogons. 

 He kindly had them prepared for me, and sent by post in ample 

 time to use in the preparation of the present memoir. 



In my first paper upon the Macrochires, I stated that I 

 wished to compare the skeleton of a Trogon with one of a 

 Humming-bird (P. Z. S. 1SS5). as Porbes had found in them a 

 peculiar structure of the palate, which led me to believe that 

 there might be other points in the skeleton of one of these birds 

 which would indicate some remote affinity perhaps with theTrochili. 

 Hence it was with no little interest that I opened the package 

 that Dr. Sclater had sent ; but my eyes had no sooner fallen upon 

 the two neatly prepared specimens it contained, than the excla- 

 mation was forced from me, Why, they are Caprimulgine 

 Cuckoos I " 



How well this first impression will be supported by a careful 

 examination of the skeleton in detail we will now see. 



In figuring the osteology of the Trogons, based upon these 

 two specimens, I chose the skeleton of T. mexicanus for all my 

 dra"wings. This I did as it no doubt agrees in all particulars 

 with the skeleton of our own Trogon, T. amliguus, and I have 

 long been desirous of contributing to the knowledge of the 

 osteology of that lone species of the genus in the United States 

 avifauna. 



Practically, however, a description of the skeleton of Trogon 

 mexicanus will answer very well for the skeleton of T. pueUa, for 

 there is but very little difference between them. I must not, 

 however, be understood to say that the difference in the skeletons 



