48 
THE CONDOR 
1 Vol. IV 
also admits that he has examined pterylograph- 
ically that peculiar swift Ca/localia, together 
with a inimber of others. 
He then states that “the posterior cervical 
apterium, so conspicuous in the humming- 
birds, is present in every swift I have exam- 
ined,” He adds that “Dr. .Shufeldt says it is 
never present in the swifts,” to which I 
would reply that so far as.l am aware Professor 
Clark and Mr. Lucas are the only ones who 
have ever found it there. He states in 
his article that Professor Thompson failed to 
find it in the swift Callocalia, to which I would 
further invite his attention to the fact that 
Nitzsch, the greatest known authority on the 
pterylography of birds, failed to find it in 
Cypselns apus, a form that perhaps may be re- 
garded as the type of the swifts. (Pterlo- 
graphy. Taf. HI. fig. i?)- All this is the 
more remarkable inasmuch as Mr. F. A. Lucas 
has said that ‘LSome of the swifts, too, possess 
the bare space on the back of the neck, and, 
while this is usually quite short, yet in the 
species that makes the edible nests (Ccilloccilia 
fuciphaga) and which has a very long neck, 
the nape tract is also long.’ (Rep. Nat. Mus. 
ibqo. p. 290). 
Therefore Mr. Lucas and Professor Thomp- 
son disagree on this very point in the same 
genus of swifts! And, to make it still more 
confusing, Mr. Lucas, in the work just cited, 
gives us a figure of the pterylosis of a hum- 
mingbird [Florisnga viellivoia) wherein the 
dorsal pterylosis is strikingly different from 
the dorsal pterylosis of a hummingbird {Tro- 
chiliis moschitus) given us by Nitzsch (Taf. 
III. fig. 18. loc. cit.) and this places Mr. Lucas, 
to the extent of these differences, at variance 
with Professor Clark, who says that the ptery- 
lography of the hummingbirds “shows such 
remarkable uniformity” (p. 109, cited above). 
Nitzsch in his figure of a hummingbird gives 
the “humeral tracks” clear, distinct and well 
defined, while Mr. Lucas in his hummingbird 
has the dorsal aspects of the pectoral limbs 
fully feathered, all to a small, subcircular apte- 
rium over either humerus, wdiere the humeral 
tracts of Nitzsch are drawn! In fact insofar as 
this area is concerned, the two figures are dia- 
metricaily the opposite of each other. In this 
comparison I have not taken into consideration 
the naked black areas over the pinion of either 
limb, shown by Lucas but overlooked in the 
hummingbird by Nitzsch. Why Professor 
Clark asks the question as he does in the title 
of his article in Science, “Are Hummingbirds 
Cypseloid or Capriniulgoid?” is hard for me to 
say. It means to enquire whether humming- 
birds are more like the swifts or more like the 
goatsuckers? Now only about a year ago Pro- 
fessor Clark admitted that “no sharp line can 
be drawn pterylographically between the 
Caprimulgi and the Striges, AnFostomus and 
Podargus furnishing just such intermediate 
characters as might be expected from their 
size and habits.” {The Auk, Apr. 1901, p. 170.; 
Surely Professor Clark sees nothing in the 
hummingbirds that leads him to believe that 
they have any close affinity with the owls 
(Striges)! If not, why ask the question whether 
hummingbirds are Caprimulgoid? I believe 
him to be perfectly correct in his opinion in 
regard to the affinity the owls have with the 
goatsuckers, and insofar as their pterylography 
goes no one could have demonstrated it better, 
but one must get the ancient picarian bee com- 
pletely out of one’s anatomical thinking-cap 
before cypselo-trochiline comparisons can be 
made without bias and without prejudice. 
R. W. ShufeldT. 
502 W. i42ud St., New York City. 
PUBLICATIONS RECEIVED. 
(Receipt of individual contributions, and re- 
views will appear in May.) 
American Ornithology, II, Nos. 2, 3, Feb., 
Mch. igo2. 
Birds < 2 x Nature, XI, Nos. i, 2. Jan. Feb , 
1902. 
Bird Lore, IV, No. I, Jan.-P'eb., 1902. 
Jahreshericht des Ornithologischen Vereins- 
Munchen, It, 1899 1900. Pub. 1901. 
Journal of the Maine Orn. Society, IV, No. 
I, Jan. ig02. 
Maine Sportsman IX, Nos. 10, ii; Jan. Feb., 
1902. 
Nature Study, II, Nos. 8, 9, 10. Jan., Feb., 
Mch., 1902. 
Notes on Rhode Id. Ornithology, III, No. i, 
Jan. 1902. 
Novitates Zoologicce, VIII, No. 4, Dec. 31, 
1901. 
Ohio Naturalist, II, Nos. 3, 4, Jan. Feb., 
1902., 
Oologist, The, XIX, Nos. i, 2, Jan. Feb., 
1902. 
Ornithologisches Jahrbuch, XIII, Nos. i, 2, 
Jan.-Apl., 1902. 
Osprey, The, V, Nos. 11-12. Nov. and Dec., 
1901. New Series, i. No i, Jan. 1902. 
Our Animal Friends, XXIX, No. 6, Feb. 
1902. 
Our Dumb Animals, XXXIV, Nos. 8,9, Jan. 
Feb. 1902, 
Out West, XVI, Nos. i, 2, Jan. Feb. 1902. 
Plant World, IV, No. 12, Dec. 1901. V, No. 
I, Jan., 1902, 
Popular Science, XXXVI, Nos. 2, 3, Feb. 
Mch., 1902. 
Recreation, XVI, Nos. i, 2, 3. Jan. Feb. 
Mch. 1902. 
West American Scientist, XII, Nos. 8, 9. 
Jan. P'eb. 1902. 
Wilson Bulletin, No. 37, Dec. i, 1901. 
