| OCR Text |
Show 334 MR. F. E. BEDDARD ON [Apr. 15, (11) The descending process of the lachrymal does not unite with the prefrontal process of the ethmoid. Psophia shows the followitig points of difference from Rhinochetus :- (1) The inner margin of the palatines is not so greatly bent downwards to form the inner lamina. (6) It is holorhinal. (8) The palatines are not of the same breadth throughout, but are wider behind than in front. (9) The temporal fossae are comparatively shallow, and there is no trace of them upon the occipital face of the skull. (10) The surface of the maxillary part of the nasal bone is directed outwards and not forwards. (11) The lateral ethmoid processes do not come into actual contact with descending process of lachrymal; lachrymals themselves are large and nearly join jugal. Psophia differs in the following from Eurypyga : - (3) There is no conspicuous foramen at junction of the quadratojugal with the maxillary. (6) It is holorhinal. (7) The interorbital plate is not largely vacuolate. (8) The palatines are wider behind than in front. (9) Temporal fossae are comparatively deep but do not appear on occipital face of skull. (10) The surface of the maxillary part of the nasal bone is directed outwards1. Psophia shows no perceptible differences from Cariama in the points enumerated above except in the comparative shallowness ol temporal fossa, which indeed hardly extends on to the occipital region of the skull in Psophia. The principal points in which it does differ are the absence of a special bone uniting the lachrymal with the quadrato-jugal2, and of course the presence of the supraorbital chain : in the greater space which separates the two maxillo-palatines, which are all but fused in Cariama ; in the fact that the jngals are attached to the maxilla above the point where the palatines articulate with the same bones. In this respect Psophia agrees with all Cranes and Bails that I have examined, while Cariama strongly resembles Serpentarius*. 1 This characteristic difference in the bone is nut correlated with the schizorhinal or holorhinal nature of the skull; although it appears to be so from the types selected for comparison in these tables. For while Numenius agrees with Eurypyga, Parra agrees with Psoj/hia and the Bails. Lams, which is, of course, schizorhinal, agrees with PsojAia, and the holorhinal Nycticorax has the nasals directed forwards quite as in Rhinochetus. - Mr. Forbes (Report on the Anatomy of Petrels [Tubmares], Zool. Chall. Exp. vol. iv. pi. xi. p. 44) remarks that a similar bone occurs in Frcgata and in some Petrels. This m a y be so, but it must be remembered that in the latter birds, as Forbes correctly states, the bone is attached to the palatine, whereas in Chunga, as I have stated above, it is attached to the quadrato-jugal. :i Some other Desmognathous birds (not Accipitrine) also resemble Carianta in this point. |
