BULLETIN OF THE LABORATORIES 
14 
the malar pillar is much longer and the angle of the beak and 
the end of the tomia are forward from the orbit. The opening of the 
nares is much larger and the lachrymo-nasal space is a very large tri- 
angular opening. On this account the ascending process of the max- 
illary is quite slender. As seen from above, the skull of Pipilo is 
much narrower between the orbits and the facial portion of the skull 
is easily distinguished from the cranial. Th§ orbits are rather larger 
and not nearly as well guarded. The lachrymal is of the same shape, 
but lacks the long slender process directed backward, below. The 
lachrymo-nasal foramen is small. The interorbital septum is very 
poorly developed, two oblong foramina extending longitudinally leave 
but a narrow bridge between them. The ethmoid is therefore greatly 
reduced. The back of the skull is alike in both, but the opening of 
the bullae is directed more forward. The palatal bones are quite sim- 
ilar, but the posterior processes are not bifid. Two curved slender 
rods, which seem at least partially ossified, pass from the palatal pro- 
cesses of the maxillary to that part of the palatals farthest forward and 
highest. The pterygoids are of the usual shape and are flattened an- 
teriorly to slide over the sphenoids The quadrate is smaller and of 
the same form, but has a rather longer orbital process, proportionally. 
The quadrato-jugal has the same hamular process posteriorly as described 
in the Grosbeak. The lower jaw is, like the upper, rather weak.. 
The various parts entering into each ramus are indicated by the pres- 
ence of a large oval foramen separating the surangular, angular and 
splenial, and the flange of the articular is large. The differences in 
the shoulder and arm are slight and are such as might occur in species 
of the same genus. The sacrum is relatively much stronger and the 
spinous armature is greater, this corresponding to the greater demand 
upon the muscles there finding origin. The foramina are of the same 
number, but the lower one is more elongated to correspond to the 
greater development of the pubic bone. The femur is of ordinary 
form, but the tibiotarsal segment is greatly enlarged. The fibula is 
quite well developed and is anchylosed with the tibia about one -half 
an inch from the head, for a short distance, but is free above and be- 
low. The head of the tibia develops two huge processes and there 
is a small patella. The condyles are very large. The “calcaneal” 
process, strangely enough, is very small and poorly ossified. The 
foot itself is not particularly enlarged. 
The form of the sternum is very closely alike in these birds ; in 
OF DENISON UNIVERSITY. 
15 
\ 
fact, the sternum is a valuable osteological index, for, not only is it 
pretty constant in a given family, but it presents points of constant 
difference between many families. The manubrium is larger, if any- 
thing, than in the Grosbeak. 
Such are some of the differences noted between these species and 
they may be taken as indications of those points in the osseous struc- 
ture most readily responding to changes in habit or habitation as in- 
duced by changes in the environment. It is by the elimination of 
the variable elements of different degrees of constancy that classifica- 
tion can be placed upon a permanent and correct basis. The vari- 
able points may be employed in distinguishing species, genera, etc., in 
accordance with their relative permanence or value. 
Plate I. Anatomy of Hespe.riph.ona. 
Fig. 1. Lateral view of entire skeleton. 
Fig. 2. Skull seen from below. Qj, quadratojugal ; PI, palatal ; pt, ptery- 
goid ; sp, sphenoid ; e , condyle ; Fm, foramen magnum ; L, internal flange of 
mandible. 
Fig. 3. Transverse section of skull. V, vomer ; Q, quadrate bone ; Of, 
optic foramen ; other references as above. 3 A, diagram of bones of skull. 
Fig. 4. Quadrate bone and articulations. Pi, pterygoid ; Qj\ quadratoju- 
gal ; a, accessory ossicles ; m c, sheath of Meckel’s cartilage. 
Fig. 5. Iiyoid arch. 
Fig. 6 . Superior surface of a cervical vertebra. 
Fig. 7 . Humerus. 
Fig. 8. A dorsal vertebra, from behind. 
Fig. 9. Muscles of the wing seen from above. 
Fig. 9 A. Anterior part of wing from below. 
Fig. 10. Skull denuded of skin and showing certain cervical muscles. 
