4 6 
Recent Literature. 
The following are the plates of the two parts before us. (In No. 8) PI. 
2i(2, Cardinalis virginianus (the eggs shown in their remarkable ex- 
tremes of size and coloring); PI. 23, fig. 1, Vireo gilvus and fig. 2, V. 
olivaceus; PI. 24, Zenaidura ccirolinensis; (in No. 9) PI. 25, fig. 1, Tro- 
chilus colubris , fig. 2, Polioptila ccerulea (and one is interested to see that 
these nests are of identical orders of architecture and ornamentation, how- 
ever different in materials); PI. 26, Sfiizella socialis; PI. 27 , Butorides 
virescens. 
The text continues as heretofore to consider the subjects under the for- 
mal heads of — Locality — Position — Materials — Eggs — Differential 
Points — Remarks ; the latter head usually covering the most matter. We 
are glad to see that the authors now fill, as a rule, their sheets of letter- 
press — there is certainly enough to be said on the subject for that ! The 
pagination of the letter press reaches p. 104 with the end of No. 9. 
It is never untimely to suggest that when works published in this man- 
ner come to be bound, especially if the parts are made up in any other 
order than sequence of publication, the original cover-titles should be pre- 
served ; there being no intrinsic evidence, either in the text or on the plates, 
of dates of publication or of contents of Parts ; and it may not be too 
early to suggest to the authors that explicit indication of these points 
should be given with the permanent title, contents, etc., of the finished 
work. — E. C. 
Shufeldt’s ‘‘The Claw on the Index Digit of the Cathar- 
tidhl.”* — We regret being obliged to make unfavorable criticisms, but this 
paper contains such important errors, both in regard to the structure of 
birds and the literature of the subject, that some rectification seems neces- 
sary . Dr. Shufeldt describes the claw at the end of the first finger of 
Catharista atrata as a new discovery, considering that claws outside the 
Ostrich groups have not hitherto been described, and also states that it is 
a point of distinction between the Old and New World Vultures. 
Unfortunately Nitzschf long ago described the claw on the first finger of 
birds in the following words : “ Die Analogie, welche die Fltigel der Vogel 
mit den Vorderfiissen der Saugthiere und Reptilien haben, zeigt sich auch 
in den Spuren von Nagel- oder Klauenbildung, welche an den Finger jener 
Glieder oftmals gefunden werden. Dieser Bildung macht es zugleich 
wahrscheinlich, dass die Urform der Fliigel in der Fussform, oder doch in 
einer, dieser sehr ahnlichen, bestand ; denn die Nagel gehoren den Fiissen 
an, sie haben im Kreise der Fliigelfunkzion keine Bedeutung, und sind da 
wohl nur durch zweckloses Nachahmen und Ueberbleiben der Fussform.” 
Farther on he describes the skeleton of the hand as follows : “Die Hand 
der Vogel hat drei Finger, 1) den Daumen, welcher (ohne das Nagelglied) 
aus einem Stiicke, 2) den grossen Finger, der (ohne das Nagelglied) aus 
* American Naturalist, Nov., 1881, pp. 906-908. 
f Osteografische Beitrage zur Naturgeschichte der Vogel. Ueber das Nagelglieder 
der Flugelfmger, besonders der Daumeii. Leipzig, 1811, S. 89. 
