Vörös A. szerk.: Fragmenta Mineralogica Et Palaentologica 11. 1983. (Budapest, 1983)
IDENTIFICATION OF THE HUMERUS I deal in this paper only with the corresponding bones of smaller Passeriformes (excl. Corvidae). In the keys I attribute greatest importance to a maximal exactness of the figures, made by myself precise professionally rather than artistically. As I have mentioned above, the stereoscopic,situation of some anatomical features was very hard to figure. Therefore the use of comparative bone material is indispensable, in some cases along with extensive experience. I was going to give here a simple key for identification and descriptions with allusions to the possibilities of confusions perhaps of systematically very distinct groups. Just as the identification of all groups of living things undergoing the "eruption of evolution", so it is impossible to give a key with absolute solutions in all cases. The investigations were based on the osteological collection of the Natural History Museum of Budapest, containing more 90% of the Central European species of this group. Very important is the use of a good stereo-microscope and a convenient tangential light. One of the greatest problems is the convenient anatomical designation of adequate morphological features, The avian anatomy in details is up to today not precise enough. I kept myself to the names of BAUMEL (1979) although in several cases I had to designate some other features too. Thus, some designations are, from BOCK (1 962). KEY OF DIFFERENT MORPHOTYPES (see Plate I ) Bones layed down on a flat surface, looked from above (or proximal epiphysis looked sometimes in distal foreshortened view). 1(14) Bones with smaller dimensions (smaller than 20 mm) 2(3) Robust forms, with stout and short bone: Hirundinidae 3(2) Lightly built, slimmer forms 4(9) With two deep fossae proximally: the fossa tricipitalis and fossa pneumoanconaea 5(8) The two fossae distinctly separated by a medial bar (=crus dorsale fossae) 6(7) Fossa tricipitalis strikingly pneumatic, sievelike - crus ventrale fossae ventrally seemingly elongated: Paridae 7(6) Fossa tricipitalis deep, but not pneumatic, the medial bar separating the two fossae well developed: Muscicapa , Phoenicurus , Saxicola , Oenanthe 8(5) The two fossae (f. tricipitalis and pneumoanconaea) not separated by the medial bar, deep, fully joined: Fringillidae (except Pinicola , see in the group of larger dimensions), Motacillidae, Prunellidae, Remizidae, Aegithalidae 9(4) with less than two deep fossae 10(9) only the fossa pneumoanconaea well developed, fossa tricipitalis very shallow, flattened, nearly lacking: Sylviidae, Erithacus , Luscinia , Panurus 11(10) fossa pneumoanconaea more or less reduced 12(13) crista pectoralis short, both fossae absolutely reduced, the whole bone elongated; Troglodytes 13(12) Crista pectoralis long, one of the two fossae somewhat deeper, elongated proximal epiphysis: Sitta , Tichodroma, Certhia 14(1) Bones with larger dimensions (larger than 20 mm) 15(22) Fossa tricipitalis very shallow, flattened fossa pneumoanconaea deep 16(19) Fossa pneumoanconaea more or less pneumatic, sieve-like 17(18) The inner part of fossa pneumoanconaea strongly pneumatized, sieve-like, the bone not inflated: Alaudidae 18(17) Pneumatic part of the inner side of fossa pneumoanconaea very reduced, the bone seemingly "inflated": Lanius , Oriolus , Bombycilla
