OCR Text |
Show 402 MR W. P. PYCRAFT ON T H E [Mar. 21, also peculiar, as is the pelvis. If only on account of these differences it must, 1 think, be alloAved to take higher rank than that accorded by Forbes, though they seem scarcely important enough to demand the formation of a separate family as has been done by Salvin (18) for instance. Fig. 2. PROCELLARIID^E. Diagram to indicate the inter-relationships of the Tubinares. Ossifraga is undoubtedly the most highly specialized of the Procellariinas. With this genus Forbes has placed Fulmarus, Priocella (Thalassceca), Thalassceca (Aeipetes), and a little further removed Pagodroma and Daption. The study of the skeleton seems to confirm the wisdom of this. I cannot, hovA-ever, express an opinion as to Pagodroma, this genus not being represented in the Museum's collection of skeletons. Salvin has associated the genera Priocella and Thalassceca with the second of Forbes's large groups of genera, containing Bulweria, Majaqueus, Priofinus (Adam-astor), Puffinus, and CEstrelata. Halocgptena, Pagodroma, Halobcena, and Garrodia are as yet unrepresented among the skeletons under m y charge. Prion has a skeleton closely resembling that of Daption and the forms associated thereAvith, in this and Forbes's papers. It differs from these mainly in the great breadth of the boat-shaped upper jaw and in the short wide palatines; in its pelvis it most nearly resembles Bulweria and CEstrelata. Coming to the DIOMEDEID,E, I regret that of the genera Thalasso-geron and Phcebetria I have only seen skulls, but the differences |