OCR Text |
Show 1881.] ON THE POSITION OF EUPETES MACROCERCUS. 837 collection, has convinced me of the incorrectness of the last part Prof. Huxley's description. In fact, the Trogons are not in the slightest degree desmognathous, but schizognathous, Prof. Huxley's error having probably been due to the imperfect preparation of the specimen which he inspected. As will be evident from the drawing I now exhibit (see figure) of Palate of Pharomacrus mocinno. the palate of Pharomacrus mocinno, the somewhat spongy and remarkably transverse maxillo-palatines do not unite with each other, or with any median ossification, across the central line. On the contrary, their inner ends are free both from each other, from the lower border of the nasal septum, which is ossified, and from the thin and filiform vomer, which runs between their ends to terminate in a noint a little anteriorly to them. The same is the case in the other five species already named. The Troo*ons being thus, as I have shown, not desmognathous, would have, if Prof. Huxley's group of " Coccygomorphse " were retained, to be removed thence to some other position, presumably in his suborder " Schizognathse." But, in fact, as we now know from Prof. Garrod's investigations1, the so-called Coccygomorphae are an artificial group, made up of at least three very distinct series of birds. Furthermore, the fact that the Trogons are schizognathous, whereas their near allies, such as the Bucconidae, Galbulidae, Coraciidse, Podargus, &c, are desmognathous, shows that the structure of the palate has not that unique and peculiar significance that has been claimed for it in the classification of birds. 4. Note on the Systematic Position of Eupetes macrocercus. By W . A. FORBES, B.A., Prosector to the Society. [Eeceived September 23, 1881.] Some months ago Mr. R. B. Sharpe directed my attention to the remarkable similarity in general facies of Eupetes macrocercus to the 1 ' Scientific Papers,' pp. 214, 215, &c. |