CEREOPSIS. 
Erom this paper I give the following extracts : “ There is no existing 
form of goose that I know anything of which possesses a skull at aU resembling 
that part of the skeleton in Cereofsis. . . . Apart from the skull, the remainder 
of the osteology of this goose presents nothing to indicate that it is an anserine 
outlier among the Anseres. As a matter of fact, many of the characters of its 
trunk skeleton — ^and more especially is this the case with respect to the 
appendicular skeleton — are practically in agreement with the corresponding 
one in the skeletons of such typical geese as we have in Anser, Branta 
and Chen. 
“ As to the skull, in some particulars, as have been set forth above, it 
exhibits a number of very marked differences as compared with that part of 
the skeleton in such genera of geese as have just been mentioned in the last 
paragraph. Nevertheless, this skull is withal anserine in its characters, though 
indicative of belonging to a somewhat aberrant type. . . . Possibly among 
extinct forms it may have had congeners. ...” 
The extinct genus Cneiniornis, from New Zealand, is considered to be 
very closely related to the present genus, but as Shufeldt concludes, no 
recent species shows very close relationship. 
On pi. xxix., Shufeldt gives for comparison figures of various bones of 
“ Chenonetta juhata ” taken from New Zealand fossil remains. The specific 
association seems to me a very dangerous application. 
■ 
