Page:Condor4(2).djvu/20

4 8 THE CONDOR I Vol. IV also admits that he has examined pterylograph- ically that peculiar swift Uallocalia, together with a number of others. He then states that "the posterior cervical apterium, so conspicuous in the humming- birds, is present in every swift I have exam- iued," He adds that "Dr. Shufeldt says it is never present in the swifts,"-to which I would reply that so far as I am aware Professor Clark and Mr. Lucas are the ouly ones who have ever found it there. He states in his article that Professor Thompson failed to find it in the swift Uallocalia, to which I would further iuvite his attention to the fact that Nitzsch, the greatest known authority on the pterylography of birds, failed to find it in Uypse/us apus, a form that perhaps may be re- garded as the type of the swifts. {Pterlo- graphy. Tar. III. fig. t7). All this is the more remarkable inasmuch as Mr. F. A. Lucas has said that "Some 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 (Callocalia fuciphaga) and which has a very long neck, the nape tract is also long." (Rep. Nat. Mus. ?89 o. 15. 290). Therefore Mr. Lucas and Professor Thomp- son disagree on this very point in the same genus of swiftst Aud, to make it still more confusing, Mr. Lucas, in the work just cited, gives us a figure of the pterylosis of a hum- mingbird (PYorisuga mellivma) wherein the dorsal pterylosis is strikingly different from the dorsal pterylosis of a hummingbird (7Yo- chitns moschilus) given us by Nitzsch (Tar. III. fig. i8. loc. cit.) and this places Mr. Lucas, to the extent of these differences, at variauce with Professor Clark, who says that the ptery- lography of the hummingbirds "showa such remarkable uniformity" (p. lO 9, cited above). Nitzsch in his figure of a hummingbird gives the "humeral tracks" clear, distiuct and well defined, while Mr. Lucas in his hummingbird has the dorsal aspects of the pectoral limbs fully leathered, all to a small, subcircular apte- rium over either humerus, where the humeral tracts of Nitzsch are drawu! In fact insofar as this area is coucerned, the two figures are dia- metrically 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 Nitzseh. Why Professor Clark asks the question as he does iu the title of his article in Science, "Are Hummingbirds Cypseloid or Caprimulgoid?" is hard for me to say. It means to enquire whether hummiug- 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 Strfges, .4ntroslomus and Poda;Tns furnishing just such intermediate characters as might be expected from their size and habits." ( The ?tuk, Apr. 19Ol , p. Wo O Surely Professor Clark sees nothing in the hummiugbirds that leads him to believe that they have any close affinity with the owls (Slriges) ? 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 oue 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. I42nd St., New York City. PUBLICATIONS RECEIVED. (Receipt of individual contributions, and re- views will appear in May.) ?tmerican Ornithology, II, Nos. 2, 3, Feb., Mch. 19o2. ]girds ? :Vature, XI, Nos. i, 2. Jan. Feb, ! 902. ]gird Lore, IV, No. I, Jam-Feb., i9o2. Jahresbericht des Ornitholozischen Vereins- .?[unchen, I1, !899 and i9oo. Pub. t9ot. Journal of the Maine Orn. Society, IV, No. i, Jan. 19o2. J}[aine Sportsman IX, Nos. to, ii; Jan. Feb., I902. ?ture Study, II, Nos. 8, 9, to. Jan.. Feb., Mch., ?9o2. ?Voles on l?hode Id. Ornithology, III, No. 1, Jan. 19o2. JVovitates Zoologics, VIII, No. 4, Dec. 3 t, I9OI. Ohio .&5?turalist, II, Nos. 3, 4, Jan. Feb., I902, ? Oologist, The, XIX, Nos. i, 2, Jan. Feb., I9O2. OrnithologischesJahrbuch, XIII, Nos. I, 2, Jan.-Apl., I9O2. Osprey, The, V, Nos. tx-i2. Nov. and Dec., ?9ot. New Series, 1, No i, Jan. ?9o2. Our ?4nimal Friends, XXIX, No. 6, Fell. 19o2. Our Dumb ?tnimals, XXXIV, Nos. 8, 9, Jan. Feb. 19o?. Out V?est, XVI, Nos. i, 2, Jan. Feb. 19o ?. Plant ?/orld, IV, No. i2, Dec. i9ot. V, No. I, Jan., x9o2, Popular Science, XXXVI, Nos. ?, 3, Feb. Mch., I9O2. l'ecreation, XVI, Nos. t, 2, 3. Jan. Feb. Mch. 19o2. V?est American Scientist, XII, Nos. 8, 9. Jan. Feb. I9O2. Wilson Bulletin, No. 37, Dec. t, 19oi.