A note by Mr. Editor of 'The Auk.'

108

Correspondence. _{[jj[^_}

[Both Mr. Saunders

and

Mr.

Moore

seem agreed that

some

sort of

'graphic' representationofbirdsongispreferabletothesyllabicmethod.

Choice betweentheir methodsislargelyamatterofpersonalopinion

and

both having beenexploitedatconsiderable lengthitseemshardlydesirable to continue the discussion further in these columns.

A

note

by Mr.

Summers

in GeneralNotes, p. 78, antea, aswellas

Mr.

Oldys' paper, p.

17,deal further withthissubject. Ed.].

On

the Position of the

Aramidae

in

the System.

Editor

of

'The

Auk.' Dear Sir:

—

Your

veryinterestingnoticeof

my

tworecentosteologicalpapers, which appeared in 'The

Auk'

for October, 1915 (pp. 517, 518), seems, in one instance at least, to

demand

a few words from

me by way

of defence.

Dr. Mitchell's conclusions are only

known

to

me

through

my

having seen the notice of hispaper in the 'Abstractof the P. Z. S.' of

May

25, 1915, p. 34. ThereI read thathe read, as Secretaryof the Society,

"a

communication onthe

Anatomy

of theGruiformbirds,

Aramus

giganteus Bonap.,

and

Rhinochetus kagu, in which he showed that A. giganteus resembled

A

.scolopaceusveryclosely inthedetails ofitsmuscularand

bony

anatomy,

and

that thegenusAramus, intheserespects,

was

verycloseto the true Cranes."

That

thetwospecies of

Aramus

arevery

much

aUkeintheirmorphology

will, ofcourse, notbequestioned; butthat these birds are "verycloseto the trueCranes" structurally, isastatement which I contend cannot be sustained,nordoes the

anatomy

oftheseveralforms demonstrateit. In a paper I published as long ago as 1894 (Jour. Anat.

and

Phys. London, Oct., Vol. 29, n. s.. Vol. 9, pt. I, art. 5,pp. 21-34, text figures), I care- fully contrasted, inthreeparallelcolumns, theessential osteologicalchar- acters ofRallus longirostris,

Aramus

vociferus,

and

Grusamericanus;

and

this comparison demonstrated the factthat

Aramus had more

rail char- acters in its skeletonthan gruine ones.

My

subsequent publications

on

the subjectpracticallysustainedthisopinion. Finally,thepaperofmine, which you kindly noticedin 'TheAuk,' isentitled

"On

theComparative OsteologyoftheLimpkin (Aramusvociferus)

and

itsPlaceintheSystem,"

a contributiontothe subject whichrecentlyappearedin'The Anatomical Record' (Vol. 9, No. 8,Aug. 20, 1915, pp. 591-606, ^figs. 1-14). Inthis paper I thought I showed very clearly that, osteologically, the Aramidce werenearer theRallidcethan they weretotheGruidce. Otheranatomists have arrivedatthe

same

conclusion.

But

to discussallofthese opinions would occupy far

more

space thannecessary in the present connection;

so I shall confine myself to

what

one of the most painstaking

and

able avian anatomists

had

tosayonthesubject. Irefertothe splendid

work

ofWilliamMacgillivray,

who

preparedallthe birddissections ofAmerican birds for Audubon's great

work

on "Birds of America." Macgilhvray

Vol-j^^I"]

Correspondence.

109

paid unusual attention to the

anatomy

of the Limpkin (Aramus),which

Audubon

calledthe ''Scolopaceous Courlan," andhis studies ofit appear in

Volume V

(pp. 184-187). There isonefull-page illustrationdevotedto the digestive tract

and

the trachea or windpipe.

Audubon

evidently be- lievedthe birdtobe a bigRail; andinso far asitshabits

and

nestingwere concerned, "very nearly alhed to Rallus elegans." After rendering his accountofit,Macgilhvray'sfollowsimmediately,and

among

other things he points out that "thisremarkablebirdhas exercised the ingenuityofthe systematizingornithologists,

some

of

whom

haveconsidereditasaHeron, othersa Crane, while

many

have

made

ita Rail, and

many more

a genus apart, butalliedtothe Rails, or to the Herons,or to both. Itseems in truth to bealarge Rail, with thewings

and

feetapproaching informto those oftheHerons; butwhilefrivolousdisputes mightbe carried onad libitum as toitslocation inthe systemofnature, were

we

merelytocon- sideritsexterior, itisfortunate that

we

possessa

means

ofdeterminingits character with certainty;

—

if

we

examine its digestive organs,

we

shall atonceseeifitbe aRail,oraHeron,oranythingelse. IfaHeron,itwill havea verywideojsophagus,a roundish,thin-waUedstomach, very slender intestines,andasingleshort obtuse coecum; ifa Railor Gallinule, or bird of that tribe, itwill have anarrow mouth, a narrowCESophagus, a very muscular stomach,intestines ofmoderatewidth,and two moderately^long, rather widecoeca."

Followingthis,Macgilhvraystatesthat he has before

him

two specimens

oftheLimpkin, which wereshotinFloridaandpreservedinspirits,andhe sets forth inthe ensuing three paragraphs^hisaccount of theiranatomy.

"Now,

inallthis,"he adds, "thereisnothingindicative of

any

affinity to theHerons; the structureoftheintestinalcanal beingessentiallylikethat of the Coots, Gallinules, andRails.

Even

the external parts sufficiently indicate itsstation,thebill,theplumage

and

thecoloringbeing

more

like thoseoftheRalUnsethanofanyotherfamily.

"The

Prince of Musignano,

who

^{first described} this bird as a Rail, Rallus giganteus, afterwards adopted for it Vieillot's genus Aramus,

and

considereditas belongingtotheArdeidoe, forminga connectinglinkwith

them

andtheRallidce,

and

^'aberrating

somewhat

towardsthe Scolopacidw, as well astending a littletowardsthePsophidce, sub-family Gruince,'

and

claiming^'again a well-founded resemblancetothemosttypicalformofthe genusRallus.' Finally,hereverts to his original idea,

and

placesitatthe headoftheRallidce. Mr. Swainsonrefersit tothe Tantalidce, associating

itwith Anastomus, Tantalus, andIbis, towhichitcertainlyhasveryfittle affinity inany pointof view."

UnderdateofSeptember 14, 1915,I haveaninteresting letterfrom

my

esteemed correspondent, Herr. Prof. Dr. H. von Ihering, Directorof the

Museu

Paulista,SaoPaulo,Brazil, inwhichhe says^:

"Your

letter ofthe 6th ofAugusthas given

me

thesatisfaction to seethat

you

are inaccordance with

me

in separating the Aramidce from^the famous 'family' ofGruida.

.... Itwasa veryusefulandnecessary

work

of

you

tostudythe

anatomy

-ofAramidceand itsallies."

110

Correspondence. _[ja^.

After the abovehad been written

my

attention

was

invited to a pecu- Har conformation of the tracheain

Aramus

vociferus

by

Dr. Edgar ^A.

Mearns

atthe U. S. National

Museum. He

tells

me

thatseveral years ago he collected a male specimen in Florida,

and

thathe observed in it

that the lower partofthetrachea,abovethebronchialbifurcation,formed a loop or convolution, which extended posteriorly to rest on the outer surfaces of the pectoralis major muscles,

much

as

we

find it in Ortalis.

Dr.

Mearns

prepared thisspecimenandpresentedittothe UnitedStates National

Museum,

and a few days ago I

made

an effort to locate it

through the kind assistance of Dr. C.

W.

Richmond.

We

^{were unsuc-}

cessfid inoursearch,

and

sothematterstandsat present.

Imention aboveadissection ofMacgillivrayofAramus.

He

had both amaleanda female birdat

hand when

he wroteouthisanatomical notes onthis species for

Audubon;

but heevidently did not observethispeculi- arity ofthewindpipeinthemalebird.

He

figurejl the tracheaofthefe- male, inwhichsex the aforesaid convolution doesnot take place,

and

he doubtlessusedthemale specimenforother purposes.

Dr.

Mearns

also collected a female Limpkin,

and

the skeleton is in the National

Museum

collections. I have examined itthere, and ^I find thatnosuch loopingofthewindpipeispresentinit. Possiblythis struc- ture

may

have been described somewhereor other

and

Ihaveneverrun acrossit; inthe event ithas not beendescribed,however.Dr.

Mearns

is fullyentitled tothecredit ofhavingfirstdiscoveredit.

Ifthis letterchancestobe read

by any

oneinterested inthe

anatomy

of birdsin Florida, Iwould be very ^glad tocommunicate with

him

and ar- rangetohaveamale specimenofanadultLimpkinsentme,inthatI

may

figure

and

fully describe this condition.

Inclosing Iwouldinviteattention tothe excellentpaper

by

Dr. F. E.

Beddard onthe osteologyof

Aramus

scolopacus{Ibis, (8) II., 1902,pp.33- 54,

numerous

figures), which is a valuable contribution to this subject.

As

thiscommunication goestoyou, another articleof mineappearsin 'The Anatomical Record,' entitled the "Comparative Osteology of Cer- tainRailsandCranes,

and

theSystematic PositionsoftheSupersuborders Gruiformes andRalliformes." (Vol. 9, No. 10, Oct. 20, 1915, pp. 731- 750, ^figs. 1-9).

A

very unusual

and

remarkable slip has taken place in thisarticle; for, atthetimeI

was

engaged

upon

itspreparation,and

had

completedit forthe press, two manuscripts were before me, namely, the old one, published years ago

when

I considered that theAramidce

was

a family belonging

among

the Cranesandtheirallies (Gruiformes), and^the remodeledone, inwhich

my

present views wereset forth. In assembling the pages, the old page,

upon

which the Classification

and some

of the remarks under "Conclusions"appeared,

was

accidentally substituted for the

new

onecarryingthe

new

classificatoryscheme

upon

it. Inthisshape

it

was handed

overtobetypewritten.

When

galleyproof

came

tohand, I

was

extremelybusy withotherwork,

and

it

was

thereforeturnedoverto an expert proofreader and most carefully corrected. This proofreader

^"^'me'^'"] Notes and News.

Ill

knew

nothingoftheclassificationof birds,however,andsothegalleyswent forward with the result

now

tobe found in

"The

Anatomical Record"

(Vol.9,No. 10,Oct.20, 1915,pp. 749-750).

Inso faras

my

present viewsareconcerned withrespect totheposition oftheAramidce inthe system, theyare correctly set forth in

"The

Ana- tomicalRecord"ofAugust20,1915(Vol._9,No.8,pp.591-606).

Faithfully yours,

R.

W.

Shufeldt.

NOTES AND NEWS.

Systematic zoology occupiesapeculiar position in thefield of science, inthatitspubhcations are toacertainextentprivileged

—

i. e. protected

by

lawswhich do notpertain toother scientificpublications.

The

latter arejudgedontheirmeritsand anauthor

who

isguilty of slipshod careless writing, or whose publications are ambiguous or insufficient, is ignored;

the merits of his

work

discounted,

and

his conclusions questioned. In other words he loses caste in the scientificworld.

Not

so thedescriber of

new

species.

No

matter

how bad

or inadequate his diagnosis or

how

unnecessary the

naming

ofthespecies, a

name

onceproposedhas

nomen-

clatural status, and is a part of systematic science

—

for this matter is

governed

by

the rules of nomenclature.

Theseruleswereformulatedmainly forthe purposeofdealing with the earlier Hterature of zoology where

names

were proposed

by

writers

who

didnot realizetheir responsibilities and didnot consider the importance of

making

their descriptions adequate for the future. Obviously if

we

are to have stability of nomenclature on a basis of priority all of these earlier

names must

be consideredandhence the rules.

Itprobably never occurredtothe framersofanyof theCodesof

Nomen-

clature that presentdaysystematistswould takeadvantageof these rules to save themselves trouble, and publish

new names

with just enoughde- scription to save their status under the rules; and yet this is precisely the situation that

we

face today in ornithology

—

andpossibly in other branches of zoology

and

botany.

Hundredsof

new

birdshave been

named

inrecentyearswith diagnoses limited toone ortwolines. These birdsare notdescribed, no one could identify

them

fromthemeagrediagnosesbut ineachcasea typespecimen anda type locaUtyare citedandinthat

way

^thelawiscomplied withand

we

arepreventedfrom rejectingthe

name

as vmidentifiable!

The

author has another species to his credit, he or the institutionhe represents has another type specimen, but other ornithologists are put to the trouble