the mutilation took place. In this experiment, one wing was operated upon before the other, in order to test the balancingpower. The bird flew perfectly, either with one or with both wings cut.

Exp. 23. Detached the half of the secondary feathers and a fourth of the primary ones of either pinion in the long axis of the wing. Flight in no wise impaired. The bird, in this instance, flew upwards of 30 yards, and, having risen a considerable height, dropped into a neighbouring tree.

Exp. 24. Detached nearly the half of the primary feathers in the long axis of either pinion, the secondaries being left intact. When one wing only was operated upon, flight was perfect; when both were tampered with, it was still perfect, but slightly laboured.

Exp. 25. Detached rather more than a third of both primary and secondary feathers of either pinion in the long axis of the wing. In this case the bird flew with evident exertion, but was able, notwithstanding, to attain a very considerable altitude.

From experiments 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, 16, 22, 23, 24, and 25, it would appear that great liberties may be taken with the posterior or thin margin of the wing, and the dimensions of the wing in this direction materially reduced, without destroying, or even vitiating in a marked degree, the powers of flight. This is no doubt owing to the fact indicated by Sir George Cayley, and fully explained by Mr. Wenham, that in all wings, particularly long narrow ones, the elevating power is transferred to the anterior or front margin. These experiments prove that the upward bending of the posterior margins of the wings during the down stroke is not necessary to flight.

Exp. 26. Removed alternate primary and secondary feathers from either wing, beginning with the first primary. The bird flew upwards of fifty yards with very slight effort, rose above an adjoining fence, and wheeled over it a second time to settle on a tree in the vicinity. When one wing only was operated upon, it flew irregularly and in a lopsided manner.

Exp. 27. Removed alternate primary and secondary feathers from either wing, beginning with the second primary. Flight,

from all I could determine, perfect. When one wing only was cut, flight was irregular or lopsided, as in experiment 26.

From experiments 26 and 27, as well as experiments 7 and 8, it would seem that the wing does not of necessity require to present an unbroken or continuous surface to the air, such as is witnessed in the pinion of the bat, and that the feathers, when present, may be separated from each other without destroying the utility of the pinion. In the raven and many other birds the extremities of the first four or five primaries divaricate in a marked manner. A similar condition is met with in the Alucita hexadactyla, where the delicate feathery-looking processes composing the wing are widely removed from each other. The wing, however, ceteris paribus, is strongest when the feathers are not separated from each other, and when they overlap, as then they are arranged so as mutually to support each other.

Exp. 28. Removed half of the primary feathers from either wing transversely, i.e. in the direction of the short axis of the wing. Flight very slightly, if at all, impaired when only one wing was operated upon. When both were cut, the bird flew heavily, and came to the ground at no very great distance. This mutilation was not followed by the same result in experiments 6 and 11. On the whole, I am inclined to believe that the area of the wing can be curtailed with least injury: in the direction of its long axis, by removing successive portions from its posterior margin.

Exp. 29. The carpal or wrist-joint of either pinion rendered immobile by lashing the wings to slender reeds, the elbow-joints being left free. The bird, on leaving the hand, fluttered its wings vigorously, but after a brief flight came heavily to the ground, thus showing that a certain degree of twisting and folding, or flexing of the wings, is necessary to the flight of the bird, and that, however the superficies and shape of the pinions may be altered, the movements thereof must not be interfered with. I tied up the wings of a pigeon in the same manner, with a precisely similar result.

The birds operated upon were, I may observe, caught in a net, and the experiments made within a few minutes from the time of capture.

Some of my readers will probably infer from the foregoing, that the figure-of-8 curves formed along the anterior and posterior margins of the pinions are not necessary to flight, since the tips and posterior margins of the wings may be removed without destroying it. To such I reply, that the wings are flexible, elastic, and composed of a congeries of curved surfaces, and that so long as a portion of them remains, they form, or tend to form, figure-of-8 curves in every direction.

Captain F. W. Hutton, in a recent paper "On the Flight of Birds" (Ibis, April 1872), refers to some of the experiments detailed above, and endeavours to frame a theory of flight, which differs in some respects from my own. His remarks are singularly inappropriate, and illustrate in a forcible manner the old adage, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." If Captain Hutton had taken the trouble to look into my memoir "On the Physiology of Wings," communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, on the 2d of August 1870,1 fifteen months before his own paper was written, there is reason to believe he would have arrived at very different conclusions. Assuredly he would not have ventured to make the rash statements he has made, the more especially as he attempts to controvert my views, which are based upon anatomical research and experiment, without making any dissections or experiments of his own.

The Wing area decreases as the Size and Weight of the Volant Animal increases. While, as explained in the last section, no definite relation exists between the weight of a flying animal and the size of its flying surfaces, there being, as stated, heavy bodied and small-winged insects, bats, and birds, and the converse; and while, as I have shown by experiment, flight is possible within a wide range, the wings being, as a rule, in excess of what are required for the purposes of flight; still it appears, from the researches of M. de Lucy, that there is a general law, to the effect that the larger the volant animal the smaller by comparison are its flying surfaces. The existence of such a law is very encouraging as far as artificial

On the Physiology of Wings, being an Analysis of the Movements by which Flight is produced in the Insect, Bat, and Bird."-Trans. Roy. Soc. of Edinburgh, vol. xxvi.

flight is concerned, for it shows that the flying surfaces of a large, heavy, powerful flying machine will be comparatively small, and consequently comparatively compact and strong. This is a point of very considerable importance, as the object desiderated in a flying machine is elevating capacity.

M. de Lucy has tabulated his results, which I subjoin :1

"It is easy, by aid of this table, to follow the order, always decreasing, of the surfaces, in proportion as the winged animal increases in size and weight. Thus, in comparing the insects with one another, we find that the gnat, which weighs 460 times less than the stag-beetle, has fourteen times more of surface. The lady-bird weighs 150 times less than the stag-beetle, and possesses five times more of surface. It is the same with the birds. The sparrow weighs about ten times less than the pigeon, and has twice as much surface. The pigeon weighs about eight times less than the stork, and has twice as much surface. The sparrow

weighs 339 times less than the Australian crane, and possesses seven times more surface. If now we compare the insects and the birds, the gradation will become even much more striking. The gnat, for example, weighs 97,000 times

1 "On the Flight of Birds, of Bats, and of Insects, in reference to the b ject of Aërial Locomotion," by M. de Lucy, Paris.

less than the pigeon, and has forty times more surface; it weighs 3,000,000 times less than the crane of Australia, and possesses 149 times more of surface than this latter, the weight of which is about 9 kilogrammes 500 grammes (25 lbs. 5 oz. 9 dwt. troy, 20 lbs. 15 oz. 24 dr. avoirdupois).

The Australian crane is the heaviest bird that I have weighed. It is that which has the smallest amount of surface, for, referred to the kilogramme, it does not give us a surface of more than 899 square centimetres (139 square inches), that is to say about an eleventh part of a square metre. But every one knows that these grallatorial animals are excellent birds of flight. Of all travelling birds they undertake the longest and most remote journeys. They are, in addition, the eagle excepted, the birds which elevate themselves the highest, and the flight of which is the longest maintained."

Strictly in accordance with the foregoing, are my own. measurements of the gannet and heron. The following details of weight, measurement, etc., of the gannet were supplied by an adult specimen which I dissected during the winter of Entire weight, 7 lbs. (minus 3 ounces); length of body from tip of bill to tip of tail, three feet four inches; head and neck, one foot three inches; tail, twelve inches; trunk, thirteen inches; girth of trunk, eighteen inches; expanse of wing from tip to tip across body, six feet; widest portion of wing across primary feathers, six inches; across secondaries, seven inches; across tertiaries, eight inches. Each wing, when carefully measured and squared, gave an area of 19 square inches. The wings of the gannet, therefore, furnish a supporting area of three feet three inches square. As the bird weighs close upon 7 lbs., this gives something like thirteen square inches of wing for every 36 ounces of body, i.e. one foot one square inch of wing for every 2 lbs. 43 oz. of body.

The heron, a specimen of which I dissected at the same time, gave a very different result, as the subjoined particulars will show. Weight of body, 3 lbs. 3 ounces; length of body from tip of bill to tip of tail, three feet four inches; head and neck, two feet; tail, seven inches; trunk, nine inches; girth 1 M. de Lucy, op. cit.