LIMOSA. 
been continually regarded as showing identical structural features. This 
is not so, however, as a careful comparison proves that they differ from 
each other in exactly the same way as most other Scolopacine genera do. 
If the points be comparatively set out the differences will be easily 
appreciated : — 
Limosa Umosa (Liime). Bill almost straight, 
very little upturned and slightly flattened 
towards the tip, with longitudhaal groove 
well marked the entire length of the 
upper mandible. 
Limosa Umosa (Linne). Legs very long ; the 
exposed portion of the tibia exceeds the 
middle toe in length while the meta- 
tarsus is more than twice the middle toe 
and more than one-third the length of 
the wing. 
Limosa limosa (Linne). The metatarsus regu- 
larly scutellate both before and behind. 
Lirmsa limosa (Linne). The claw on the middle 
toe is long, linear, fragile and strongly 
pectinate, and is about one-third the 
length of the middle toe. 
Scolopax lapponica Linne. Bill shorter and 
more slender and distinctly upturned, 
much flattened at the anterior half 
which causes the longitudinal groove 
to become obsolete on that part of the 
upper mandible. 
Scolopax lapponica Linne. Legs short ; the 
exposed portion of the tibia less than 
the middle toe ; the metatarsus less 
than twice the middle toe and much 
less than one-third the length of the 
wing. 
Scolopax lapponica Linne. The metatarsus 
irregularly scutellate, the scutella 
towards the tibio-tarsal joint being 
broken up into hexagonal scales. 
Scolopax lapponica Linne. The claw on the 
middle toe is normal, short and un- 
toothed and only one-fourth, or less, 
the length of the middle toe. 
When Kaup differentiated the Waders and introduced generic names for 
almost all of the species, he also separated these two, restricting Limosa to 
the former and utilising Limicula of Vieillot for the latter. Vieillot however 
had named L. limosa (Linne) as the sole species of his Limicula upon the first 
introduction of that genus. Kaup’s alteration cannot be accepted. The 
included cuts will explain the difference most readily. 
VOL. m. 
185 
