BULLETIN OF THE AUCKLAND INSTITUTE AND MUSEUM No. 1. THE MOA A STUDY OF THE DINORNITHIFORMES BY GILBERT ARCHEY PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE COUNCIL ISSUED MAY 29, 1941 THE UNITY PRESS LIMITED 1941 *mmm -> • tc wini.uMri.st a«i «» « ymurn - t&MWMtmeatmtm AUCKLAND INSTITUTE AND MUSEUM LIBRARY N*£Vf 7E ALAMO COLLECTION (RESERVE) class No. Q£$73L-j£ #• BULLETIN OF THE AUCKLAND INSTITUTE AND MUSEUM " i No. 1. w . • j. - • - v-— > *■» v . V’;A. * ^ ■ '3^ THE MOA A STUDY OF THE DINORNITHIFORMES BY GILBERT ARCHEY PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE COUNCIL ISSUED MAY 29, 1941 THE UNITY PRESS LIMITED 19 4 1 •44379 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . TYPES AND NOMENCLATURE . SIGNIFICANT CHARACTERS AND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION OF GENERA AND SPECIES . EGGS SKIN AND FEATHERS . TRACHEAL RINGS . CLASSIFICATION . DIAGNOSES . DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES PHYLOGENY OF THE DINORNITHIFORMES . ADVENT OF THE MO A: DISTRIBUTION OF THE PALAEOGNATHAE DEVELOPMENT AND EXTINCTION . SUMMARY . PRIORITY OF NAMES PROPOSED FOR DINORNITHIFORMES BIBLIOGRAPHY . INDEX . PLATES . TABLES 5 6 9 13 73 75 76 76 76 79 81 86 89 98 100 101 113 121 137 < INTRODUCTION. It is just over a hundred years since Professor Richard Owen exhibited to the Zoological Society of London part of a large bone from New Zealand brought to him by Dr. John Rule, and, as the result of examining it, declared . . . so far as my skill in interpreting an osseous fragment may be credited, I am willing to risk the reputation for it on the statement that there has existed, if there does not now exist, in New Zealand, a struthious bird nearly, if not quite, equal in size to the Ostrich.” Owen’s “osseous fragment” has been reinforced by vast quantities of skeletal remains from many sources, and his brief paper of 1840 has been followed by a voluminous litera¬ ture on the extinct giant flightless birds of this country, a literature of over four hundred contributions from one hundred and eighty authors! Owen, who gave us the foundation and framework of our understanding of the moa ; Haast, Hector and Hutton ; Lydekker, Parker and Forbes; these are the names that stand in our mind as the leaders in the keen enquiry that followed Owen’s first bold deduction. But over a century of discovery and of research and speculation has not been able to establish finality, either in fact or inference, in this fascinating field of study, for each new find or investigation, in solving some problem, has as frequently revealed new uncertainties. Nor can the present study, instigated through the discovery of some new North Island collecting fields yielding the remains of individual birds, pretend to resolve outstanding issues. It is primarily sys¬ tematic; it has endeavoured to review the material and literature of past investigations, and it includes a detailed study of the new collections and of as much of the older material, including types, as could be located in New Zealand and Great Britain. It is hoped that the changes that have been made in the names of species and their generic grouping may take us a little further towards the desired final classification, but there still remain difficulties in discerning the natural relationships underlying the variability in form and size exhibited among moa bones and skeletons; there are unsolved problems, too, in nomenclature and the fixation of types, and, apart from systematic details of this nature, there still remains room for differences in interpretation of the facts already established. In 1930 Mr. W. H. Gregory, engineer-in-charge of the Waikaremoana hydro-electric station, discovered moa remains in the caves which occur throughout the outlet baniei- wall of Lake Waikaremoana; following this discovery a collecting excursion was arranged by Mr. F. Crossley Mappin, with Sir Carrick Robertson, Mr. A. T. Pycroft and the writer, to explore the area. Trips were made in 1930, 1931 and 1935, and in the intervening period the high limestone country of the Mangaotaki Valley, the Te Anga Valley and the hill country of Mr. Phillips’ property at Marakopa were similarly investigated, all with grati¬ fying results. In 1932, skeletons were excavated from the sand-dunes at Doubtless Bay and pre¬ sented to the Museum by Mr. L. J. Matthews and his son, Mr. Geoffrey Matthews. It was in this area that Mr. Matthews senior, thirty years before, had discovered the two moa eggs described by the writer in 1931. Remains from these sandhills have also been presented by Mr. E. T. Frost and Major G. A. Buddie; others from Doubtless Bay and the North Cape district were secured this year by Mr. Pycroft, Mr. H. R. Jenkins, Mr. A. B. Deeming and the writer. A further series was obtained in 1933 from caves on the Mt. Arthur table-land, Nelson, by Messrs. F. Gibbs, H. Kidson, S. W. Street and Wm. C. Davies, who kindly organised the trip for my benefit and participation. During last summer Mr. J. Hodgen discovered remains in a swamp on his property at Pyramid Valley, near Waikare, North Canterbury. The site is being carefully excavated by a Canterbury 5 Museum party and, contrary to past experience in swamps, has yielded individual skele¬ tons T have had the pleasure of joining one Canterbury Museum excursion and have had the advantage, not only of readily given facilities for . . . •ii tv.-, t> a Director of the JVluseum, conceining also of helpful discussions with Dr. R. A. raiia, uirecioi them. Altogether 50 fairly complete skeletons and over 100 partial sets of the bones of indi¬ vidual birds have been secured from these various sources. A study of this material and of the individual skeletons already in other museums in New Zealand and in the Bi ltish Museum, has made it possible to present a detailed account of certain species and by ascertaining the range of variation that occurs, to judge the value of certain characters as a basis for classification. It will be seen that I am indebted to many friends who have contributed to the assembling of this important material, and I hasten to make my grateful acknowledgment to them all for their help. I am particularly beholden to Mr. Mappin and to Sir Carrick Robertson and Mr. Pycroft, whose enthusiasm, energy and good company through many seasons of assiduous search and collecting among rocks and caves and through fern, supple-jack and brambles, provided a spur, shall I say, and encouragement in pursuing this study. No less than 42 skeletons or individual sets of bones were secured through their explorations. I have made many demands upon my colleagues the directors and curators of all the New Zealand museums for facilities to examine specimens, for the loan of them, and for taking measurements which I had missed during my visits. Mr. J. Grant, Hon. Director of the Wanganui Museum, generously gave me the detailed measure¬ ments and calculated proportions of the large number of bones which he and Mr. Shepherd have recovered from the Makirikiri deposit, and Mr. A. Robertson of Wanganui invited me to inspect his considerable collection from the same site and kindly arranged all the specimens for examination and measurement. I have to acknowledge helpful suggestions and assistance from Dr. R. S. Allan, Hon. Palaeontologist of the Canterbury Museum, and Mr. A. W. B. Powell, of our own museum, in connection with references, problems of nomenclature and fixing of types ; Mr. Powell has also drawn plates 6, 8 and 12 to 15 and all the text-figures, as well as giving me help¬ ful advice with regard to the other drawings. Sir William Benham has most obligingly written long detailed replies to my questions about Otago Museum specimens; Miss Dorothea M. A. Bate and her colleagues in the Geological Department of the British Museum have most courteously and readily made available the many specimens from their collections that I desired to examine, and I received a like cordial welcome and help from the late Lord Rothschild and Dr. Jordan at Tring. Nor must I forget to record my indebtedness to many students, including past teachers and friends, whose investigations have been freely drawn upon, particularly in the interpretative portion of this study. Finally, I have to acknowledge the generosity of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, both for the visitor’s travelling grant which enabled me to examine the material in Great Britain and for a further grant on my return for visiting the museums in our own country. TYPES AND NOMENCLATURE. All who have recently studied the Moa have remarked upon the uncertainty and con¬ fusion that exist in the classification of the group. This is partly due to the puzzling manner in which the species grade into one another ; but it is equally due to the fact that most of the species have been founded either on single bones, or more frequently and unhappily, on mixed bones, i.e. those not of individual birds, sometimes even on bones from more than one source. 6 Sir Richard Owen's historic studies were, of necessity, based upon material of this kind whereby he was led in some instances to associate in one species bones which have subsequently been shown to belong to more than one. He himself made certain collec¬ tions, and others have yet to be made. Further confusion, it must be said, resulted from his lack of precision in proposing species: they are sometimes indicated in the most casual manner without the nomination of types, with particularly unfortunate results when mixed bones were being examined. Rules of nomenclature had not been formulated in Owen’s time, and their present strict application, by which alone can finality be reached, may in some cases seem to nullify Owen’s intention. This is unfortunate; but we have to accept what he actually did rather than what he intended to do. For instance, he intended that his extensive illustrated papers in the Transactions of the Zoological Society should be the means of establishing his species ; but frequently the brief advance notices in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society contain adequate descriptions and must therefore be accepted as prior designations. It may thus be necessary to correct, even to criticise certain phases of Owen’s systematic work; on the other hand one cannot refrain from paying a tribute to his masterly anatomical analyses and his skill in deducing form and function from skeletal material. Later workers of the last century unravelled some of the confusion, but in many cases they added to it, partly because they, also, had incomplete and mixed material for study, and partly because the workers were in different countries. Lydekker, in England, had some of Owen’s types and the large collections, for the most part of unassociated bones from several localities, in the British Museum. Haast and Hutton had extensive series, chiefly of leg-bones from the swamp deposits of Glenmark, Enfield, Kapua and Hamilton’s (the latter in Central Otago), but no early types. I can find no record that Lydekker had actually compared the British Museum material with Owen’s types. The latter were supposed to be in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, but they could not be identified there when I examined this collection in 1937, * and I am constrained to make the suggestion that when Sir Richard Owen transferred to the British Museum he may possibly have taken specimens with him to continue his studies, and that the types may therefore still be in the British Museum, unrecognized, and possibly now unidentifiable. Fortunately, there are casts of some of them m the British Museum. Hutton, having for examination many hundreds of mixed bones from swamps and finding that, although they varied considerably in size and proportion, there was. no definite break which might distinguish the groups, established certain species on points of concentration” in the recorded dimensions, i.e. on dimensions that were strongly repre¬ sented numerically in his series. Unfortunately he also failed to designate types, and in order to embody these idealistic species I have, where possible, nominated lectotypes from among Hutton’s specimens. Nomination of lectotypes is made in the synonymy of the different species concerned. Parker (1895b) propounded a classification based on skull characters. It is an admir¬ able comparative study of skull anatomy, but as a systematic study suffers from two defects. The skulls were for the most part not from individual skeletons, and were assigned only interpretatively, and sometimes wrongly, to already-described species founded on leg-bones, which, having priority, cannot be ignored. Rothschild (1907) did not introduce any new criteria for the determination of species ; he did, however, give names to certain species designated by Parker as species a, sp. (3, sp. y. *Sharpe (1891, 424 footnote) reported them missing nearly fifty years ago. 7 Oliver’s classification (1930), which was followed by Lambrecht (1933), is based on the proportionate widths of the leg-bones, and is in line with the evolutionary tiend towards increased bulk perceived by Owen (1844b, 241-3, 250, 1873a, 362), who leco^ nized also the classificatory significance of the accompanying decrease in metataisal length. It now appears that these principles can be followed only in part j moreover the skull characters as defined by Oliver require adjustment in the light of information deiived from newly-found individual skeletons. These, it is believed, disclose the types oi skull characteristic of the genera. They also reveal that two subfamilies with widely differ¬ ing skulls, sterna and phalanges have independently embarked upon identical courses of development of shorter and heavier leg-bones. This hitherto unsuspected parallelism in evolution has, perhaps more than any other factor, obscured the relationships of the genera and species of moa. Re-arrangements will therefore be necessary both on the basis of the characters used and, as is so often tiresomely necessary in a revision, through the fixing of types and priority, according to the Rules of Nomenclature. Because of the numerous cases in which species have been founded on more than one bone, not being those of an individual, close attention has had to be given to the fixing of types, and in this connection the correct procedure to be adopted is important. Both the present writer (1927, 156) and Oliver (1930, 35) had assumed that the procedure was to fix the first-described bone as the type specimen and to ignore the others as regards that species, but Dr. R. S. Allan has kindly drawn my attention to the undesirability and doubtful validity of this course. My special thanks are due to Dr. Allan: not only has he given me the memorandum he intended to publish on this matter, but he has also handed to me the bibliographical notes and references to the proposals of genera and species that he had brought together. These have enabled me to check my own compila¬ tion and have also drawn my attention to references that I should otherwise have over¬ looked. I have availed myself of his advice on several points in synonymy and have had his co-operation in preparing the undermentioned statement of a problem on type fixation forwarded for an opinion to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen¬ clature. Returning to type-selection, Di. Allan s viewT is that, where a species is based upon more than one bone not being those of an individual, and where the author has failed to designate or indicate a type, all the bones described in the original publication are of equal \alue and must be tieated as co-types or syn-types until a subsequent reviser shall have nominated one of them as a lectotype and thereby given it the status of a holotype. Phis selection, once made, is not subject to change. To proceed otherwise, Dr Allan observes, is to do scant justice to earlier workers who have adopted this method, and to reverse decisions made by them after due consideration. With this one can but agree (though I may later have occasion to express a wish that in some cases the selector had chosen other than he did), and, in the absence of rules for selecting the type of a species, the procedure outlined above, based as it is on Rule 31 governing the selection of geno¬ types, is acceptable and will be followed here. Arising out of this procedure a new question arose in the case of Dinornis novae- zedandiae as to whether certain proposals by Owen, made after his original proposal of that species but not in themselves a definite selection of a type, had, or had not, had the effect of determining the type specimen, and, thereby, of invalidating Lydekker’s subse¬ quent nomination of a lectotype. The case has been presented to the International Com¬ mission on Zoological Nomenclature whose opinion is, however, not yet available. 8 SIGNIFICANT CHARACTERS AND CLASSIFICATION. Before entering upon detailed descriptions of the genera and species we should dis¬ cuss two factors that have created uncertainty in classification, (a) the form of the beak, and (b) size and proportions of leg-bones. (a) Form of the beak. No uncertainty as to identification arises in the case of the wide flat skulls, with broad terminally depressed beaks of the species of Dinornis (PI. 5, fig. 1), nor is there any difficulty in distinguishing either the skulls of Anomalopteryx with their large tem¬ poral fossae and characteristic narrow beak, or the much smaller, round-contoured skulls of Megalapteryx. Identification in these cases has been facilitated by the discovery of sufficient skeletons to establish the correct association of skulls with leg-bones. The un¬ certainty has arisen in the case of the heavier moas, through the occurrence in siwamp and dune deposits of broad-billed and sharp-billed skulls mingled indiscriminately with several kinds of leg-bones, whose proper relations to the skulls, and to one another, the lack of individual skeletons has made difficult to determine. In 1870 (p. 123, pi. 10) Owen described certain unassociated crania and sharp-pointed beaks as being of D. elephantopus. From further unassociated material he referred to D. crassus , a skull having both a broad bill, and, if one can judge from the illustration (pi. 11), a collapsed or constricted antrum wall. He assigned to D. rheides a sharp-billed skull (pi. 12), (really of Em. crassus), and he proposed the name Dinornis gravis (p. 141, pi. 14) for a skull lacking a premaxilla but with a broad mandible, which, from his statement that he had here “parts of the skeleton of the same indi¬ vidual bird,” we can assume belonged to it. No question of generic grouping was involved in these descriptions. When Haast (1874) proposed a classification of the group he regarded his Meionornis (type casuarinus) as having a narrow pointed beak, Palapteryx (elephantopus) as having the bill obtusely rounded, and Euryapteryx (type gravis) as possessing a bill “not so obtuse as the former.” Lydekker (1891) included the round-billed skulls in Emeus (“the mandible is in the shape of a wide U”) and proposed the genus Pachyornis (type elephantopus) for those with a sharp narrow beak. Parker (1895b) followed the same arrangement, and made the further observation that the broad-billed skulls (Emeus) lacked the antrum cavity. Oliver (1930) reversed this, stating that Emeus had a pointed bill and Euryapteryx a broad one. This arrangement appeared to be right according to the then known indivi¬ dual skeletons, three only, belonging, apparently, to these genera, i.e., the broad-billed Eu. ponderosus from Riverton (Otago Museum), Eu. kuranui (Canterbury Museum) and the sharp-billed Amodeo Bay skeleton which the present writer (1927) had described as C. geranoides and Oliver referred to Emeus exilis: the broad-billed skull of the type of Em. exilis Oliver reported as being doubtfully associated with it. Oliver’s grouping, however, ignored the long narrow beaks known to exist on large skulls, i.e. Pachyornis immanis of Parker (1894, 224), P. elephantopus of Parker (1895b, 375, pi. 60, fig. 22) and Mesopteryx sp. f3 of Parker (ibid. 378, pi. 60, figs. 20-21).* Except for the latter these narrow sharp beaks are not certainly associated with their crania, though of one of them Parker had “no doubt that they belonged to the same individual” ; moreover they were found with the crania, are appropriate in size to them and much too large for any known species of Emeus. ^Figured by Oliver as “Skull of Emeus.” 9 In the Otago Museum collection there are several perfect skulls not, however assoc, ated with skeletons, with a broad rounded bill and a collapsed ^trum (PL J, S- ■ , pcr contra there are twoskuOs with a cran ^ tha - * eto J ^ expanded antrum (PL 8, figs. 1 and 2). It is not certain in these cases hat the beaks belong to the crania, but again they are of the right S1ze and much too large for any known species of Anomalopteryx or Emeus. None of the large, sharp-beaked skulls, it will be noted, was found with its skeleton, and the only appropriately sized leg-bones with which they might have been affiliated were of the same size and proportion as those of Eu. ponderosus and Eu. kuramir Lyde t ter (1891a, 316) linked the sharp-beaked skulls with tibiae that were strongly inflected, an with certain very wide metatarsi; it happens that he was mainly right, but he had, ai that time, no real grounds for this association, for the type skeleton of elephantopus, the species on which he established his sharp-beaked genus Pachyornis, is composite, a recon¬ struction from mixed bones. From a series of small North Island individual skeletons obtained during our own collecting, and from large skeletons secured by Canterbuiy Museum from the Pyramid Valley swamp, it has now been ascertained that three types of skull can be recognized : (a) sharp-billed, as in Anomalopteryx , but rather shorter and broader than in that genus ; (b) with a narrow bill moderately rounded at the tip , and (c) with a broad, obtusely rounded bill. (Text-figs. 11a, b, c, p. 45.) These three types of skull adequately separate the genera (a) Pachyornis, (b) Emeus, and (c) Euryapteryx, and are found to be associated with different forms of sterna and also with certain types of leg-bones. The latter, however, present their own problem in classification, i.e. the difficulty, especially marked in the three genera just named, of distinguishing species or genera by measurements of leg-bones. Size and Proportions of Leg-bones. The fact is, many leg-bones, taken by themselves, cannot be identified by their size and proportions as being of this or that species or genus, and sometimes even a careful study of their form will not help us. For instance, the three tibiae shown in outline on Plate 13 are almost indistinguishable from one another, yet they belong to three different genera in two separate sub-families. When, however, examination can be made of sets of leg-bones of individual birds, distinguishing characters readily present themselves in the length, and sometimes the proportionate breadth of the femur and metatarsus in relation to the length of the tibia. The three genera included on Plate 13 are An&malop- tcryx , Emeus and Euryapteryx ; but, when we come to distinguish the last, Euryapteryx, from Pachyornis, we are faced with the further difficulty that these two genera not only have the same relative lengths of the three leg-bones, but also exhibit the same range in width of bones, from moderately stout to extremely massive forms. In the North Island the species of Euryapteryx are small, and are exactly matched as to relative length and pro¬ portions of the leg-bones by like-sized species of Pachyornis, while in the South Island the species of both genera are larger and again exhibit an almost identical range of sizes and of attainment of massive proportions in their leg-bones. At one time, having in mind the exact similarities in leg-dimensions in all these heavy footed moas, and the occurrence together, in the same sand-dune deposits, of sharp and broad-billed individuals with the same sized leg-bones, I had come to regard them as representing species exhibiting sex-dimorphism in the skull, as in Heteralocha, the New Zealand huia. The accompanying differences in the sterna, however, and slight modifica¬ tions in the form of the leg-bones, together with the retention of five outer phalanges in the sharp-beaked forms and their reduction to four in the broad-billed (and in Emeus), indicated that the birds stand related by these latter characters rather than by similari¬ ties in the leg-bones, which are to be regarded as the result of parallel development. 10 The facts just related, considered in conjunction with others mentioned below, pro¬ vide the basis of the classification set out in paragraph 8 following. 1. The acceptance of a wide range both in length and proportionate width of the leg- bones of any one species seems to be inevitable ; this clearly emerges from the dimensions of 43 individuals of Anomalopteryx didiformis , mostly from the North Island, including 15 from the one locality, Lake Waikaremoana, where the con¬ ditions indicate that they were approximately contemporary. 2. The relative length to one another of the three leg-bones is a more important criterion for classification than length and breadth of the bones. In the largest moas, Dinornis, the metatarsus is well over half the length of the tibia; in all the others it is hardly more than half as long, usually considerably less. A decrease in the length of the femur generally accompanies that of the metatarsus. 3. On the basis of the dimensions and proportions of leg-bones alone, there would, at first sight, seem to be a single line of evolutionary development towards shortei and stouter legs with increased shortening of femur and metatarsus. This appar¬ ently single line of development proves to be double and parallel : i.e. it has taken place in two groups here accorded subfamily rank. These groups are well defined by differences in the form of the skull and beak (4), by the number of phalanges on the outer toe (5) and less clearly by the form of the sternum (6). 4. The tallest moas, Dinornis, with long metatarsus, have an exceptionally broad flattened skull with a broad flat beak; the outer toe has five phalanges. These comprise the family Dinornithidae (Oliver 1930). All the others are shorter birds with metatarsi of reduced length and the skulls higher or moie rounded in sec¬ tion. The beak also is higher whether it is narrow and sharp, or broad and blunt. These are the family Anomalopterygidae (Oliver ibid.). 5. (a) Of the Anomalopterygidae three genera have the normal five phalanges in the outer toe: they comprise the subfamily Anomalopteryginae. They also have skulls with sharp-pointed beaks and with expanded maxillary antra. (Text-fig. 10b, p. 42.) Genera Anomalopteryx, Megalapteryx and Pachyornis. (b) Two genera of Anomalopterygidae have four phalanges in the outer toe (subfamily Emeinae ) i one of them, Emeus, has a narrow beak with a some¬ what rounded tip, and with the maxillary antra expanded, but not to the same extent as in the Anomalopteryginae. The other genus, Euryapteryx, has a broad beak with a rounded tip and with the maxillary antra collapsed. (Text- fig. 10a.) 6. The sternum is short and broad or moderately broad in the Dinornithidae and Anomalopteryginae ; it is long and narrow in the Emeinae. 7. Parallel development of shorter and stouter leg-bones is especially marked as between Pachyornis (Anomalopteryginae) and Euryapteryx (Emeinae). 8. To repeat : the tall Dinornithidae, with flattened broad skulls and the normal num¬ ber of phalanges, are regarded as standing apart from the others. In the Anoma¬ lopterygidae the genera Anomalopteryx and Megalapteryx are slenderest, and in this respect, and in their normal number of phalanges, stand nearest to the Dinorni¬ thidae. ’ Pachyornis, which also retains five outer toe phalanges, exhibits increased stoutness and curvature of the leg-bones (bandy-leggedness) and stoutness of body (broad pelvis and sternum) ; this is developed to a moderate extent in the small North Island species, but to an amazing degree in the large species of the 11 South Island. The genus Emeus (four outer-toe phalanges) has diverged rom t e proportions of Anomalopteryx only moderately in the direction of shorter and stouter limbs; in skull form however it shows a slight increase in breadth and bluntness of the bill and reduction of the antrum, thus faintly foreshadowing the very broad bill and completely collapsed antrum of Euryapteryx. The latter genus has also gone further than Emeus, indeed nearly as far as the South Island species of Pachyornis, in increased breadth and massiveness of the leg-bones. These lela- tionships may be indicated graphically thus — DRNIS ANOMALOPTERYX PACHYORNIS EMEUS EUR YAPTER V We rely, therefore, on structure and form rather than on size, for generic characters ; but we still have to depend on differences in size for the separation of species. It will appear that all the specimens of Anomalopteryx are included in the one species, except for the fragments of much smaller bones which somewhat precariously sustain A. antiquus. Similarly, except for an exceptionally large femur and tibia on which M. benhami is founded, all the specimens of Megalapteryx are included in one species. There are no specially marked “out-sizes” in the series of North Island skeletons of Pachyornis and Euryapteryx, yet there are grounds for admitting more than one species in each genus. In the first place there is, in the North Island skeletons of Pachyornis and Euryapteryx, a much greater total range in sizes than in those of A. didiformis, notwithstanding that they are smaller birds. For instance the range in total length of the three leg-bones in 40 specimens of A. didiformis is barely 30% above the smallest total length, whereas it is 38% in the same number of Euryapteryx skeletons, and over 40% in specimens of Pachy¬ ornis. In the second place there is, about the middle of the otherwise even sequence from the smallest to the largest Euryapteryx specimens, a small but clearly marked break both in size and proportions of the leg-bones. The very large range in sizes, together with the break in the sequence, is considered to warrant the admission of two species. A pre¬ cedent for this course may, as Dr. Falla reminds me, be found in the general recognition of Apteryx haasti and A. oweni as separate species, notwithstanding the intermediates in both size and plumage that occur. Among the smaller specimens of Euryapteryx there is an even better separated group of still larger skeletons which are recognized as a third North Island species of this genus. In Pachyornis the specimens fall into two distinct size groups, and although this may be due to there being fewer specimens available for measurement, they are accepted as representing two North Island species in this genus also. 12 In the same way in Emeus there is an even graduation of sizes in the specimens attri¬ buted to Em. crassus; but there is a distinct drop in size to the largest of the next group, which is accordingly identified with Em. huttonii. While some of the breaks in the sequence of sizes may ultimately be closed by later discovered specimens, it is con¬ sidered that in the meantime the differences that exist should be recognized and the corresponding specific names retained. Note re Synonymy : It will be clear, from what has been said above about the leg-bones in Pachyornis and Euryapteryx, that many of the previous descriptions of material will have included specimens of both genera under one name. In order to avoid omission of refei- ences and at the same time to include under the names here adopted only indubitable references to the species concerned, I have set out, separately under the relevant species, the references that are part Pachyornis and part Euryapteryx . DESCRIPTION OF GENERA AND SPECIES. This section commences with a detailed examination of the skeleton of Anomalopteryx didiformis, of which I have 32 individuals of our own collecting and measurements or the published records of 11 other individual specimens. The variation of the different chaiac- ters will be recorded, and discussed as to the range which may be expected within a species ; the relative variation of skull and pelvis as to the leg-bones will be significant in this respect. A brief analysis of fifteen skeletons or partial individuals of ,M egalaptet y.i will follow, and the material available in the other four geneia, Pachyornis, Emeus, Euryapteryx and Dinornis, will be discussed in the same manner, i.e. dimensions of all individuals known and of types of the species that have been proposed will be set out as evidence for the classification proposed and as conveniently arranged records for future students. I may appear to have given over-full bibliography, synonymy of species and other references, but these details are so scattered and have proved so tedious in the compilation that I feel I should at least make them available. In each species the leg-bones will first be discussed and the remaining characters in the order skull, vertebral column, pelvis and sternum. For brevity the tibio-tarsus and the tarso-metatarsus will be called tibia and metatarsus. Wherever dimensions of leg-bones are given, either in tables or in the text, they will be in centimetres in the following order. Length. Proximal Width. Middle Width. Distal Width. Girth. 17.5 5.75 3.20 7.83 8.1 32.8 18.2 44.7 46.3 The second line gives the widths as percentages of the length as used by Oliver. I have added the girth, or circumference at the middle of the shaft, not because it is in itself especially significant, but to facilitate comparison with the dimensions supplied by earlier students who not infrequently recorded length and girth only. The measurements have all been made between uprights and, to measure widths, the bones have been placed at right angles to the direction of the measuring slide (Text fig. 1) The shorter measurements were made to tenths of a millimetre, and the pioportions calculated on this basis: this was only because the calipers gave this refinement and it was just as easy to read to two places of decimals as one on the slide-rule by which the proportions were obtained. These dimensions have been given in the tables only to the nearest millimetre, partly because recordings to two decimal places suggest a degree of accuracy that is really quite spurious when the varying shapes of the bones are con¬ sidered and also because the figures themselves, if given to two places, suggest a greater 13 Text-fig. 1. Measuring apparatus. difference than is really significant in one or two tenths of a millimetre. I mention this because, by calculating from the measurements as now adjusted to the nearest millimetre, the results might differ slightly from the proportions entered in the table, which were, in fact, calculated from finer detail than is actually recorded. In the systematic portion, which follows immediately, the necessary nomination of lectotypes is made in the synonymy against the appropriate citation of the species con¬ cerned. Genus Anomalopteryx Reichenbach, 1852. 1852 . Anomalopteryx Reichenbach, Av. Syst. Vog. p. xxx. Type, by monotypy, Dinornis didiformis Owen. 1897 . Anomalornis Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 29, p. 543. Substituted for Anomalopteryx, supposed wrongly by Hutton to be preoccupied. Two species: — A. didiformis (Owen), in which are included Dinornis dromaeoides Owen, Dinornis parvus Owen, Anomalopteryx fortis Hutton and the metatarsus of Palaeocasu- arius velox Forbes. A. antiquus Hutton, p. 29. Anomalopteryx didiformis (Owen), 1844. Dinornis didiformis: Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. London vol. 3, pt. 3, p. 242, pi. 27, figs. 3-6. Dinornis dromaeoides: Owen, ibid, P. 253, pi. 22, figs. 1, 2; pi. 23, fig. 1. Type: femur from Poverty Bay. No. f.16 in Table of Admeasurements, Owen p. 248; originally in Museum of Royal College of Surgeons. Casts in British Museum (18598, Lydekker p. 267) and Canterbury Museum. • • Dinornis didiformis, Owen, Cat. Foss. Org. Remains (Mammalia and Aves) Mus. Roy. Coll. Surg. p. 361. Dinornis dromaeoides : Owen, ibid, 369. Dinornis didiformis : Haast, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 1, pp. 82, 83 (2nd ed. 1875, pp. 23, 24). .. Dinornis parvus Owen: Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1882, no. 1, p. 2 (nom. mid.) Dinornis parvus Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. London, vol. 11, pt. 8, 233, pis. 51-58. Type: Skeleton from Pokororo, Nelson, in the British Museum (A.3, Lydekker, p. 279). Anomalopteryx dromaeoides : Lydekker, Cat. Foss. Birds Brit. Mus. 266. Anomalopteryx didiformis : Lydekker, ibid, 275. Anomalopteryx parva : Lydekker, ibid, 278. 13 Anomalopteryx dromaeoides : Sharpe, Cat. Ost. Vertebr. Mus. Roy. Coll. Surg. Lon¬ don, Part III, 430. Anomalopteryx didiformis ■ Sharpe, ibid, 432. 1844 June 5 1845 1869 May . . 1882 1883 January 1891 April 25 1891 November 14 1891 November 1892 May . . 1893 May . . 1895 1897 June 1907 1930 1933 . . Palapteryx dromaeoides : Hutton (part, femur) N.Z. Journ. Sci. new issue, vol. 1, pt. 6, 248. Palapteryx plenus Hutton (part, femur) ibid, 248. Anomalopteryx didiformis • Hutton, ibid, 248. Palapteryx dromaeoides : Hutton (part, femur) Trans. N.Z. Inst. 24, 121. Palapteryx plenus • Hutton (part, femur), ibid, 122. Anomalopteryx didiformis • Hutton, ibid, 123. Anomalopteryx fortis Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 25, 9. Founded on three metatarsi a tibia and three imperfect femora from Glenmark in the Canterbury Museum. Of the metatarsi only one can now be identified in the Museum collection: it is here selected as the type. Anomalopteryx didiformis : Parker, Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. 13, pt. 11, 378. Anomalopteryx parva '■ Parker, ibid, 379. Anomalornis didiformis • Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 29, 547. Anomalornis gracilis : Hutton (not of Owen), part : tibia and metatarsus, ibid, 546. Dinornis dromaeoides ’ Rothschild, Extinct Birds, 194. Anomalopteryx didiformis • Rothschild, ibid, 202. Anomalopteryx parvus '• Rothschild, ibid, 202. Palaeocasuarius velox Forbes (part) Rothschild, ibid, 220 (metatarsus). Dinornis dromaeoides : Oliver (part), New Zealand Birds, 41. Anomalopteryx didiformis • Oliver, ibid, 44. Anomalopteryx parvus ■ Oliver, ibid, 45. Dinornis dromaeoides : Lambrecht, Handbuch der Palaeornithologie 140. Anomalopteryx didiformis ‘ Lambrecht, ibid, 143. Anomalopteryx parvus : Lambrecht, ibid, 144. The type is a metatarsus from Poverty Bay. It should be in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, but I could not identify it there. A cast of the type is in the British Museum (No. 18595; Lydekker, p. 276); its dimensions and proportions are: 17.5 5.75 3.20 7.83 = 100 32.8 18.2 44.7 An individual skeleton with a metatarsus of approximately this size and proportions has the following leg dimensions: Mangaotaki, A.M. 156 Femur 24.0 7.9 3.13 8.1 — 100 32.9 13.0 33.7 Tibia 37.7 10.05 3.34 5.4 — 100 26.6 8.8 14.4 Metatarsus 17.7 5.75 3.1 7.6 = 100 32.5 17.5 42.9 In this species the femur (PI. 1, fig. 3) is long and of moderate width, not slender as in Megalapteryx (fig. 2) ; seen from the side it is almost straight and only slightly arched upward. The muscle ridges are well developed, but less strongly than in Dinornis. On the posterior surface there are two ridges behind the medullary foramen , the outei of these lies immediately behind the foramen, the inner some distance behind. In Dinornis, they are nearly opposite each other; in Emeus and Euryapteryx they are usually confluent, but when they are, as occasionally, separate, their relative position is as in Anomalopteryx. The tibia (PI. 2, fig. 3) is relatively stouter than in Dinornis and Megalapteryx, but less stout than in Emeus ; its outer margin is straight with the proximal third elevated as the fibular ridge; its inner margin is deflected inwardly just above the trochlear bridge, more 15 . 7 - Tina rvrrmmal end is expanded and the pro- so than in Megalaptcry.v, less than in ^ degree the direction of the cnemial crest is strongly deflected outward, fo g deflected ectocnemial. Except that it is usually strmghter audits disW ® ^ proportionate inwardly, it does not differ veiy much fro Fmeus (fig 5) width the metatarsus (PI 3 fig. 3) stands between Megalaptery.v (fig. 2) and h ( g. )■ „.ideriw» L,er than the met.t.r.h., ,.d both bo*. are towr m pro- portion to length of the tibia, than in species of Emeus. The 43 skeletons or individual sets of bones that I refer ^o this^spec^es^displnp^gretd ZSSZ Z eertain bird, ate larger Among individuals which, for instance, may have been grouped for then posse, a long tibia, some will be found to have the femur and metatarsus corresponding y ong, in others both these bones will be relatively short; or the femur may be i long _a metatarsus short, or vice versa. This is sufficiently demons ra e y ‘ , . . ,. femora, the tibiae and the metatarsi each in order of length independently of their indi¬ vidual association, and then drawing connecting lines between the bones o in ivi (Table 1). The considerable range in size and proportion of the three leg-bones in different individuals indicates the unreliability of a table of dimensions and proportions of a series of any one leg-bone as a basis for the establishment of a species. . The table also shows how easily mistakes can be made in attempting to group into species-sets the mixed bones from a swamp deposit. The extent of variation in follows : — Femur Tibia Metatarsus the length of the leg-bones recorded in Table 1 is Max. Mean. Min. Range. 27.5 23.3 20.0 7.5 43.4 37.8 32.3 11.1 21.2 17.9 15.7 5.5 as A wide range of variation is also found in the proportionate width or stoutness of the bones as the following record of maximum and minimum proportionate width (length = 100) shows. f Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. Prox. Mid. Dist. Prox. Mid. Dist. Prox. Mid. Dist. Max. 37.5 15.7 43.0 29.4 10.1 16.7 36.1 20.7 49.0 Mean 33.4 13.9 37.6 27.3 8.2 15.2 32.4 18.2 44.0 Min. 29.3 12.1 32.3 25.2 6.4 13.8 28.8 15.8 39.0 Another aspect of this variability is indicated by the range in proportionate width exhibited by ten tibiae of approximately the same length (37.4 to 38.0 cm.) . Length. Proximal. Mid. Distal. Max. • • = 100 28.9 9.35 16.4 Min. — 100 25.3 6.68 14.4 ^Tables A to O, giving detailed dimensions and proportionate widths of leg-bones, are together follow¬ ing the plates; Tables 1 to 19, giving other dimensions, are distributed through the text. tThe above maxima and minima are not proportionate widths taken from a single bone; the proximal width may be from one bird, the middle width from another and the distal from still another. Some¬ times in an individual (i.e. Tring Museum) the femur will be broad in all dimensions, with the propor¬ tions varying considerably in the other bones. 16 Table 1. A. didiformis. Femora, tibiae and metatarsi each arranged in order of length: the lines connect the bones of individual birds. Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. 21.1 20.0 lo nf the variability in the relative stoutness of We may include, as a further exampl f tt ^ individuals from the same locality the leg-bones of this species, the following detm (e.g. Waikaremoana, A.M. 70 and 71) • F. 25.75 = 100 A.M. 70. 8.46 3.41 32.8 13.2 T. M. 39.6 100 19.9 100 11.67 29.4 6.41 32.2 3.30 8.3 3.34 16.8 9.54 37.0 6.07 15.3 8.24 41.4 A.M. 71. 25.15 8.88 100 35.3 39.3 = 100 18.7 = 100 11.17 28.4 6.4 34.2 3.60 14.3 3.75 9.5 3.68 19.6 9.38 37.2 6.14 15.6 8.46 45.2 It will be seen that A.M. 70 is definitely more ^le that its tibia has a more expanded proximal end , thei e a , differences between their skulls, pelves and sterna. Thu», throughout .hi, ,eri„ ”f £ KX'taXS arid'trregular i”b"»,on tto b" . of MivM.al,. An indWdu.l with » wide femur mu, h.VtheS nurrower uud the „e«„,u, either wide or »nw Vj^ZtZl. U may be wide in one transverse dimension and narrow in one or both of the otheib^ should also be noted that Table A includes the dimensions of only those bones which or part of an individual ; the inclusion of dimensions of the numerous mixed bones av 1 - able would show an even finer gradation of variation. As will be seen later (p. 20) there is considerable variation m size and proportion o ^ skull and pelvis ; but I have not found it possible to associate any one type ot skull oi pelvis with either stout or slender leg-bones. Neither do the specimens from any one locality or area exhibit anything approaching a uniformity m size or proportions such as would warrant the recognition of local subspecies or varieties. The largest and nearly the smallest individuals in my material are from one restricted area, e.g. the Waikaremoana lake-barrier, and the range is nearly as great in the specimens 10m Mangaotaki in the North Island and Mt. Arthur in the South Island. It might be suggested that the specimens we are considering represent merely an evolutionary development over a long space of time, and that the smaller forms are of an earlier period than the larger. Time may possibly have seen an increase in size in these birds, but it did not eliminate the smaller ones, for at Waikaremoana all sizes are approximately contemporary. The slip which fissured the sandstone and formed the caves that trapped the moas is of Recent origin (Marshall, 1927), and the birds must have lived subsequent to it. They are even later than immediately after the formation of the caves, for their skeletons lie above the Gisborne pumice layer which later covered the lake-barrier and was washed into the caves. I have no means of estimating the age of the Mangaotaki specimens, which also vary greatly in size. At all events, it is clear that, on the basis of the size and proportion of the leg-bones, we have here a species exhibiting gradual and continuous variation in all dimensions and proportions. In this extensive range of variation the type of A. didiformis occupies a middle place, while the type of A. parvus is one of the smallest. There is no break between them, and A. parvus is accordingly included here as a synonym of A. didiformis. The type of Dinornis dromacoides Owen, a femur from Poverty Bay, also falls well within the range of the femora of A. didiformis. The type itself is missing, but there are casts in the British and the Canterbury Museums, and one has only to place the cast alongside the femur of an indubitable A. didiformis to recognize that D. dromacoides is identical with it. 18 I may add that the femur which Owen (T.Z.S. 3, PI. 24), judged to be that of his D. didi- formis, is probably that of Eu. exilis. Lydekker (1891a, 273) in discussing a cast of this latter femur recognized its distinctness from didiformis. Previous writers, in commenting on the range in sizes of the moas, have suggested that one sex may have been the larger, as the female is in Apteryx. Hutton (1892b, (H) pointed out that, if this were so, the species should occur geographically m pairs, but those recognized by him did not do so. I am unable to discern two separate groups m A. didiformis; the leg-bones vary evenly as to length, and haphazardly as to relative width; neither can I detect any association of, say, a larger or bioadei pelvis, 01 a arger skull, with either the larger or smaller leg-bones. If the sexes were of different sizes, the size-range of the sexes overlapped. Skull: For dimensions and proportions see Table 2. Variability in the form and proportion is as marked in the skull as in the leg-bones, but there are sufficient constant characters to enable the skull of Anomalopteryx to be readily distinguished from that of the other genera. In general it is moderately wide, with very large temporal fossa and a long tapering sharp-pointed bill. Viewed from the side (PL 4, fig. 3) the roof is evenly arched, sometimes with a slight eminence (single, not double) in line with, or just behind the postorbital processes ; t e premaxilla is long and curves downward to an acute tip, its lower margin also being slightly downcurved and slightly over-reaching the tip of the mandible. The posterior (paroccipital) margin of the tympanic cavity is oblique, sometimes convex, usually forming an angle with the upper margin, which curves forward and downward to merge anteriorly with the zygomatic process; sometimes, however, the outline of the cavity is an even arch slightly higher than wide. The temporal fossa is wide and deep, the tem¬ poral ridge extending from its confluence with the lambdoidal to high up on the roo , it is wider than the orbit ; the mid-temporal ridge is always present and is sometimes prominent. The post-temporal fossa is a wide convex area, and the zygomatic processes moderately long and acute. The postorbital process, in lateral view, projects backwards to a greater or less degree. The upper margin of the orbit is usually evenly arched, but is sometimes obtusely angular, or even right-angled where the postorbital process joins the upper margin. The preorbital (lachrymal) curves evenly outwards and downwards, a deep notch near its extremity forming the mesial wall of the lachrymal foramen w ic is completed ectad and anteriorly by the maxillo-nasal (absent from fig. 3), a narrow slip of bone extending from the nasal along the front of the lachrymal and expanding below to join the maxilla.* In a few cases the outer wall of the lachrymal foramen is com¬ pleted by further growth of the lachrymal bone itself. In posterior aspect the skull in Anomalopteryx sometimes appears to be broader than in Emeus, but this is only because of its lesser height. The supra-forammal ridge is no much swollen (as, usually, in Emeus) and the supra-occipital crest is a narrow, distinctly raised ridge ; the supra-occipital pits are small or vague ; there is a shallow depression on each side above the paroccipital processes. The outer borders of the paroccipital pro¬ cesses may be sinuate with the lower extremity of the process somewhat pointed, or th y may curve evenly to a rounded lower margin ; generally they reach to about halt way between the levels of the condyle and the mamillar tuberosities. The latter are of moder¬ ate size, and separated by a wide arch. In dorsal view (PI. 5, fig. 3) the single slight eminence on the roof, if evident, varies in size and position. The lambdoidal and temporal ridges are almost invariably confluent (in one skull there is a separation of 1 mm. on one side only) ; the temporal ridges may * Parker (1895b, 383) had not seen this bone in Anomalopteryx , but thought it might be a separate element. 19 „„ ivim-lv and then turn sharply outward. form an even curve or they may con^rg nd extend laterally only slightly beyond The post-orbital p,~ «.* n7„arr.w with a sub-.opt. tipi it. lateral the squamosal prominences. In - . f ature appears to be constant. Scattered margins are slightly incurved, anc liS ' . ^ skulls- but there is no occurrence nits annarentlv pneumatic, occur above the orbit m all skulls, out KSS, supposedly tor .rest feathers, that oe.ur m rpi 7 fio- 2) exhibits less variation. The basitempoial platform is The ventral aspect { PI. 7, g. mamillar tuberosities rather less than of the usual form, with the space aero ss them passes. The median (but occasionally the same as) considerably: it may be longitudinal depiession m e p , ’ at e;ther end. It is least developed in scarcely discernible, or a distinct groove deepei at eitner enu. f voung skulls and its greater depth and distinctness seem to be the outcome ot the thicken ng of the inner wall of the eustachian grooves. The rostrum has a slight con- sSioTat about the middle of its length, and its triangular processes are moderately developed. The maxillo-jugal arch, formed of the usual three parts, maxitta jugal and quadrate jugal is a nearly straight bar, exhibiting only a slight convexity m its posterior portion. Inthis respect it differs from Pachyornis (PI. 7, fig. 3) in which the maxillo-jugal arch curves markedly outwards. The expanded anterior portion of the maxilla coveis a spacious antrum cavity (PI. 5, fig. 3) which opens posteriorly, usually by a wide round aperture, though occasionally by a narrower flattened, almost slit-like passage. The anterior pai t of the maxilla is partly overlaid ventrally by a thin triangular expansion of the palatine, the two together forming a maxillo-palatine plate. The three components of the maxillo- jugal arch apparently fuse together early, for in only one of my specimens can the junction between the maxilla and jugal be seen: in this case the jugal covers the maxilla dorsally up to where it abuts against the lachrymal. The jugal also apparently covers Table 2. Dimensions and proportions of skulls; A. didiformis. (See Note top of page 24.) Auckland Museum Collection No. 121 72 70 71 82 Length: total 13.5 14.1 14.1 13.38 Length: paroccipital to preorbital process 8.0 8.0 8.25 7.9 Height of cranium 4.46 4.40 4.40 Width across paroccipital processes.. 6.37 5.9 5.83 5.94 5.43 Width across squamosal prominences 7.55 6.6 7.00 7.00 6.54 Width across temporal fossae . . 4.38 4.53 4.57 4.37 Width between temporal ridges 2.64 2.80 2.76 3.05 Width across post-orbital processes.. 8.08 7.8 7.83 8.04 7.53 Width across pre-orbital processes 4.45 5.04 5.00 4.74 Width of tympanic cavity 1.8 1.99 1.84 1.85 Width of temporal fossa 3.4 3.38 3.30 3.30 Width of orbit 2.8 2.85 3.13 2.90 Space between lambdoidal and tern- poral ridges . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proportions (percentage of total length) : — Height 31.6 31.2 32.8 Paroccipital width . . 43.8 41.3 42.1 Squamosal width 49.0 49.6 49.7 49.6 Width across temporal fossae . . 32.5 32.1 32.4 31.7 Post-orbital width . . 57.8 55.5 57.0 57.1 % width between temporal ridges: temporal fossae 52.5 60.2 61.8 60.4 69.5 % widths, squamosal: post-orbital 93.4 85.0 89.5 87.1 87.0 20 the anterior two-thirds of the quadrato- jugal, but I have not been able to discern the exact form of the junction. The quadrato- jugal moiety of the arch is slightly expanded, and its extremity has an inner facet for articulation with the quadrate. The palatine (PI. 7, fig. 2) : anteriorly the palatine expands horizontally to form a narrow triangle whose outer border fits into a corresponding groove on the ventral sur¬ face of the maxilla, the two together forming the maxillo-palatine plate mentioned above. Posteriorly it expands vertically to form a thin triangular lamina which twists mesally to junction with the oblique postero-dorsal margin of the vomer (Text fig. 2b) ; postero- cctally it effects an oblique junction with the anterior margin of the pterygoid, and pos- teromesally it sends out a small stout triangular process which fits between, and separates, the posterior ectal border of the vomer and the antero-mesal border of the pterygoid (Text fig. 2b). The vomer and pterygoid, however, join one another above this process (Text fig. 2a). The pterygoid is of irregular shape: from its junction with the vomer and palatine it passes backwards and outwards, effecting at its middle an articulation with the basi-pterygoid processes; posteriorly and ectally it articulates with the lower border of the orbital process of the quadrate. In two of the three perfect skulls I have with the vomer still in situ , its slender paired laminae are united anteriorly, where they enclose the rostrum ; in the other specimen they are separate anteriorly. Posteriorly they are separate and diverge to make junction with the palatine and pterygoid as described above. The vomero-palato-pterygoid junction in Anomalopteryx agrees with that described by Parker (1895b) ; it also clearly confirms the close resemblance to the condition in Rhea affirmed by Pycraft (1900, p. 262), as against Parker’s interpretation. In fact, in the immature skull of Anomalopteryx we see clearly that encroachment of the palatine over the vomero-pterygoid junction (Text fig. 2a and b) which is held by Pycraft (pp. 206-7) to indicate the first stage of the evolutionary change from the primitive arrangement in Dromaeus ( Dromiceius ) towards the derived neognathous condition; it is also of significance for the possible phyletic unity of the struthious birds (see p. 84). It may be added 63 55 102 151 150 51 149 66 155 69 89 13.5 13.75 13.0 12.8 12.5 12.8 13.9 13.25 13.5 12.9 14.2 7.63 7.70 7.45 7.4 7.5 8.1 7.75 7.68 7.5 8.2 4.40 4.31 4.47 4.07 4.07 4.2 4.88 4.54 4.4 4.47 4.14 5.46 6.48 5.25 5.52 5.7 5.65 6.06 5.80 5.3 6.29 5.9 6.35 6.70 6.96 6.37 6.1 6.30 6.82 6.60 6.35 6.62 6.95 4.35 4.28 4.18 4.10 3.97 4.12 . 4.43 4.50 4.32 4.15 4.18 2.37 2.90 2.84 2.64 2.23 2.9 2.78 2.75 2.37 2.66 2.17 7.0 7.26 7.87 7.28 6.9 6.82 7.50 7.15 7.00 7.49 7.36 4.5 4.86 4.30 4.58 4.60 4.59 4.85 4.57 4.22 1.73 1.94 2.06 1.80 2.0 1.92 1.8 1.70 1.75 2.00 1.94 3.22 3.29 3.48 3.1 3.06 3.07 3.6 3.30 3.18 3.25 3.50 2.80 2.91 2.7 2.75 2.37 2.9 2.83 2.60 2.90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.6 31.3 34.4 31.8 32.55 32.8 35.2 34.4 32.6 34.6 29.25 40.5 47.2 40.4 43.1 45.5 44.1 44.0 43.7 39.3 48.7 41.6 47.0 48.7 53.6 49.5 48.8 49.2 49.0 49.8 47.0 51.3 49.0 32.2 31.2 32.2 32.0 31.8 32.2 31.9 34.0 32.0 32.2 29.5 51.8 52.6 60.7 56.8 55.2 53.3 54.0 54.4 51.8 58.0 51.9 54.5 67.7 67.8 64.4 58.5 70.4 62.7 61.1 54.8 64.1 51.9 90.7 92.2 88.5 87.5 88.4 92.3 90.9 92.3 90.8 88.3 94.3 21 and the Anomalopterygidae, for, notwithstanding its peculiarity in having the pterygoid bi-pronged anteriorly, it exhibits the same ventral encroachment of the palatine over the junction of the vomer and pterygoid as occurs in the other palaeognathous genera. The mandible is stout, thus according with the large temporal fossa ; seen from above the rami are straight and moderately divergent postad; the symphysis is relatively long and pointed terminally. In lateral view it first curves downward, then upwards, and downwards again at the symphysis. The variations in the different characters have been indicated generally in the above description, and, as to dimensions and proportions, may be noted more in detail from Table 2. I may add that no variation in any one character has been found in skulls of any particular form or size. A large temporal fossa, for instance, may be present in either a large or a small skull, and greater relative breadth may also occur in a long or a short skull. Similarly in the relation between skull and leg-bones in individual skele¬ tons, it cannot be stated that taller or larger birds have larger skulls — on the contrary a tall bird may have a smaller skull than a shorter one ; neither can it be determined that broader skulls, for instance, are associated with stout leg-bones, or indeed with leg-bones of any particular type. The form and size of skull are just as varied and haphazard as to the type of leg-bones with which they are associated, as the three leg-bones are to one another in different individual skeletons. The skull on the mounted skeleton labelled A. didiformis in the Dominion Museum has a striking peculiarity in that at the junction of the lambdoidal and temporal ridges there is a deep angular depression on the right side, and a slight depression on the left side (Text-fig. 4). Otherwise this is a typical Anonmlopteryx skull. This skeleton seems to be composite : the legs are typical of an adult of the species, the pelvis however is immature and small for the skeleton, there are eight instead of six rib-bearing thoracic vertebrae, and the sternum is typical of Text-fig. 4. A. didiformis: skull of skeleton that of Emeus . in Dominion Museum. 22 Structural elements of the skull. Two immature skulls and one juvenile have provided the following details of the form and extent of the constituent cranial elements. Seen from behind the disposition of the bones is as described and illustrated by Parkei (1895b, p. 380 et seq. pis. 57 and 59) . The condyle is formed medianly by a wedge-shaped portion of the basi-occipital, and dorso-ectally by the exoccipitals. The mamillar tuber¬ osities are composed of basi-occipital, exoccipital and prootic. On the base of the skull the basioccipital extends further forward than shown by Parker, as he himself suggested that it might ; it forms the base of the skull m the prootic region as well as in the occipital and abuts on the basisphenoid and its underlying basitemporal at the posterior basicranial fontanelle. In lateral view (Text Fig. 5) the relations between the bones differ to some extent from Parker’s description. The parietal, supraoccipital, exoccipital and prootic are as he defined them, except that the parietal extends only a short way down the side and meets the alisphenoid by a curved junction. The latter bone is irregularly shaped; it sends a broad extension postero-dorsally to meet the squamosal, and a narrow process antero- dorsally to lie under the lateral projection of the frontal which it joins to form a as for the attachment of the separately ossified post-frontal or post-orbital process. Beneath the squamosal the junction between the alisphenoid and prootic passes downward and slightly forward; at the point where the prootic and basitemporal adjoin, the ahsphemH margin is notched ; so is the basitemporal margin, and all three bones form by their recessed margins the trigeminal foramen. From this point forwards the lower margin of the alisphenoid is slightly curved and then turns abruptly upwards to effect junction with the posterior margin of the frontal, forming finally the front margin of the narrow antero-dorsal process of the alisphenoid mentioned above. At the junction of alisphenoid, frontal and basitemporal, notches in these bones form the fossa containing openings for the orbito-nasal, the oculomotor nerves and the internal ophthalmic artery (Parkei p. 388) In front of this fossa is the optic foramen, bounded, according to Parker by the orbitosphenoid above and the presphenoid below. My own juvenile skulls are deficient here and I am unable to supplement Parker’s observations on this point, except to note that the lower margin of the optic foramen seems to be formed, at least m part if not entirely, by an upward prolongation of the basitemporal. 23 Note: In measuring skulls the total (i.e. overall) length is the basis on which p ■ portionate widths are calculated, i.e. they are recorded as percentages of the total length. There is, however, a practical disadvantage in taking this as a basis m that scu s aie so seldom obtained with the beak entire and still fused m position on the cranium. e length from the condyle to the tip of the rostrum is also frequently unobtainable because of abrasion or breaking of the rostrum. On the other hand the length from the posterior margin of the paroceipital (Text fig. 6, n) to the front of the preorbital (m) is almost always obtainable. In perfect skulls it varies from 58% to 59r/c (average 58.5%) of the length in Eu. exilis and Eu. curt ns, and from 57.8 to 59.2 (average 58.5%) in A. didiformis, so it is not possible to calculate the total length precisely from the known paroccipital-preorbital length. Never¬ theless, in all those cases in which the length of a not quite perfect skull is given in the tables, I have used a calculation from the paroccipital-preorbital length as a means of checking the estimate of the total length made by comparison with perfect skulls. Vertebrae: The vertebral column is composed of 21 cervical vertebrae, three cervico- thoracic, three thoracic, 18 pelvic and 11 caudal. Following the atlas and axis, Nos. 3, 4 and 5, and sometimes 6, present dorsally a subquadrate outline; the neural spine is represented by a pair of small subparallel pro¬ cesses, and there are distinct hyperapophyses. These vertebrae may be termed nape cervicals or nape vertebrae. In those immediately succeeding the nape series there is an abrupt change in the dorsal outline: the anterior, or diapophysial portion is expanded, the middle region is constricted, and posteriorly the elongated diverging post-zygapo- physes are separated by a median V-shaped depression; the neural spines are higher and divergent, becoming increasingly so, but at the same time lower in the succeeding cervicals until, from the 17th or 18th, they approach one another again and increase in height, coalescing on 20 and 21 to form a single, high, median neural spine. This single neural process increases in height on the succeeding thoracic vertebrae. Hyperapophyses, present on the nape vertebrae, may, or may not be present on 6 to 9. The “neural ridge” of Hutton (1894, p. 160) rarely appears as a continuous even ridge; normally a constriction separates the neural spine from the hyperapophysis. The latter are present up to the 24th or 25th. The interzygapophysial canal is a small pore on the nape vertebrae, but it may be occluded on, or absent from, 4, 5 or 6. Thereafter it is 24 present up to 14, 15, 16, or 17, though in one skeleton it is present only up to 10. The interzygapophysial bar which forms the outer walls of the canal increases in width and thickness on the hinder cervicals, finally occluding the canal on or about the 14th to 17th as just described. The ventral surface of the nape cervicals shows a median hypapophysial ridge, strongly developed on the axis and 3, progressively reduced on 4 and 5, and evanescent on or absent from 6 where parial hypapophyses appear mesally on the base of each parapo- physis. The pleurapophyses at first increase in length, becoming long and styliform by the sixth; in succeeding vertebrae they progressively shorten, this being accompanied by an increase in length of the parial hypapophyses, which by the 17th have approached one another closely, uniting on the 18th to form a median hypapophysis again. Txiis median hypapophysis has, therefore, a different structural origin from tnat on the nape cervicals where it is a median projection from the hinder part of the centrum. The hypa¬ pophysis is strongly developed on the remaining cervicals; on the thoracic vertebrae it changes form again, becoming a ridge or keel on the anterior part of the 22nd and 23i d , a notch divides the keel into an anterior and posterior portion on 24 and 25, or on 25 and 26, or the posterior portion alone projects from 26, becoming bifid on 27 with the two resulting knobs standing more widely apart on the pelvic veitebiae 28 and 29. Of the pelvic vertebrae No. 28 has freely-articulating floating ribs, while 29 and 30 have floating ribs fused to the ilia; 31 to 34 bear transverse processes which extend out to and unite with the ilia. The number of pel /ic vertebrae is eighteen (PI. 11, fig- 3), which is one more than has hitherto been recorded ; this makes it accord numerically with the condition in E. huttonii (Benham 1934, pi. 7), though there is a difference in grouping of the component series ; moreover there is sometimes an extra vertebra present. Excluding the occasional coalescence of the last thoracic vertebra (27) with the pelvis, there are normally seven pre-acetabular vertebrae (28 to 34). These are followed by four vertebrae (not three as previously described) without transverse processes (35 to 38) ; the last bears small neural canals higher up on the side than in the others and has thus escaped notice (Text fig. 7, 38) . Occasionally it has the pleurapophysis represented by a small splinter-like process (PI. 11, fig. 3, 38). In the pelvis of A.M. 117, and that of 186, vertebra 35 has transverse processes. The remaining seven vertebrae (39 to 45) have prominent transverse processes extending obliquely to the ilium. Vertebra 46 is occasionally fused to the pelvis, but is more usually a free caudal; counting it as such there are eleven caudals (46 to 56) of which either the last two or the last three are fused together. The foregoing account is based on adult specimens; the condition des¬ cribed is even more clearly determined in immature pelves (Text-fig. 7) with the synsa- crum not yet fused to the ilia. Text-fig. 7. A. did if or mis: pelvic vertebrae immature. A formula, ,u«h the follo.i.ff, in the nelvis or svnsacrum, will facilitate indication of the variations that occur t Brouninff ofS the vertebrae Thus in the formula “28-34 (35-38) 39-45” which sets out fhe normal condition in Anomalopteryx, “28-34” represents the pre-acetabular vertebrae (35-38) indicates the four acetabular vertebrae which lack transverse processes; and “39-45” the remaining posterior vertebrae with transverse processes , the addition o ( ) in brackets would indicate the fusion of the first caudal with the pe vis. Owen (1883, p.244), in describing the pelvis of A. parvus, also recorded eighteen “sacral” vertebrae. He missed the small eleventh (No. 38) ; but a misnumbering of the succeeding centra and pleurapophyses gave him an extra centrum, one for which there were no transverse processes. The latter, on his Plate 54, were numbered 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18; they should have been 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, or, according to the present finding 12 to 18. He also made a small slip in stating that the pleurapophyses of the 6th and 7th vertebrae were fused into one process, for he had already described them as similar to 4 and 5, as they appear in the illustration. Assuming the small eleventh (38) to be present, and I have never found it absent, the formula for the pelvis of Owen s type of A. parvus would be the normal one, i.e. 28-34 (35-38) 39-45. A total number of fifty-six vertebrae in the moa was also given by Hutton (1894, p. 159) ; but he included twelve caudal. His grouping was: — 1-21 cervical; 22-27 thoracic; 28-44 pelvic; 45-56 caudal. The arrangement found in the skeletons I have examined is: 1-21 cervical, 22-27 thoracic, 28-45 pelvic; 46-56 caudal. In Anomalopteryx and in the other genera, there is sometimes an exti a pi e-acetabular vertebra. It is a true vertebra, having its own neural canals as well as transverse pro¬ cesses. The condition is not due to vertebra 27 having become fused with the pelvis, for it occurs where there is the normal number of 27 free vertebrae ; moreover the form of the ribs borne by 28, 29 and 30 is characteristic enough to identify them. In the follow¬ ing formulae I have numbered the interpolated vertebra 33A ; this will give the number 34 constantly to the large transverse process which joins the acetabulum anteriorly, and 39 and 40 to the two which unite to join it posteriorly. It will also serve to distinguish the two instances (Nos. 117 and 186 mentioned above) in which the normal 35 has developed transverse processes ; in these cases, as will be seen from the formulae, there are only three vertebrae (36-38) lacking pleurapophyses. Pelvic formula — A. Normal A.M. 190 A.M. 117 A.M. 187 A.M. 63, 70, 151 . . Finally, to return interest. didiformis. 28-34 (35-38) 39-45 28-34 (35-38) 39-45 (46) 28-35 (36-38) 39-45 (46) 28-35 (36-38) 39-45 28-33A-34 (35-38) 39-45 to the axis and atlas, the following measurements may be of Auck. Mus. No. 150 151 51 149 66 69 Tibia length . . 36.4 36.1 36.0 35.9 34.9 34.5 Atlas: height. . 1.91 2.20 2.18 1.78 width . . 1.81 2.27 2.14 1.86 Axis: height. . 2.71 2.6 2.44 3.14 3.07 2.56 width . . 2.57 2.54 2.50 2.87 2.76 2.59 26 These dimensions indicate once more that, although there is considerable variation in the size of vertebrae, it does not follow that of the leg-bones. No. 51, for instance which has larger legs than 66, has a considerably smaller atlas and axis, though its skull is only slightly smaller ; curiously, although the atlas of 51 is larger than that of 69, its axis is smaller, yet they fit one another perfectly in each skeleton. There are appreciable differences in the form of the vertebrae also. It may be suggested that differences sue as are recorded above are trivial and insignificant; it is to draw attention to this tha they have been noted. Pelvis (PI. 9, fig. 3 ; lateral view) : The dorsal margin of the ilium presents a gentle even curve which passes anteriorly without angularity into the fiont margin, this in turn curves round strongly to the ventral border, whence project the short ribs of the 29th and 30th vertebrae. Viewed from above (PI. 10, fig. 3) the dorsal iliac margins diverge posteriorly, gently at first and then, in the acetabular region, abruptly outwai s to form the anterior margin of the escutcheon. The lateral margins of the. escutcheon are convex, converging posteriorly; there is, however, a good deal of variation here. Seen from the side (PI. 9, fig. 3) the upper margins of the escutcheon continue the even curve of the pre-acetabular iliac dorsal margin, and there is no considerable flattening m this area as in Pachyornis (fig. 4) . The width of the escutcheon is usually about 37 )o o the total length. The ischium, narrow anteriorly, widens posteriorly; its dorsal margin terminates slightly behind the end of the escutcheon, the ventral margin terminating some 3 cm further beyond, the terminal margin thus being oblique. The pubis is a slender curved bar slightly wider distally, terminating in line with the lower margin, of the ischium. Pubis and ischium are only moderately divergent laterally in this species; the distance across their extremities is normally about 1.08 times the width at the antitrochanters. Variation: There is no marked variation in the form or proportion of the pelvis in A didiformis In three pelves, two of immature birds, the front margins of the escutcheon diverge more gradually from the upper iliac margin, though the escutcheon itself is no less proportionately wide than in the other specimens. The leg-bones to which, these three pelves belonged exhibit the usual degree of variation among themselves ; that is to say the individuals exhibiting this pelvic variation did not in any way form a separate variant group. Table 3. Dimensions and proportions of pelves of A. didiformis. Auckland Museum No. Length Width at antitrochanters Width at pectineal tubercles Width of escutcheon Ischium: length width divergence Pubis: length . width divergence Proportions: length — 100 Width at antitrochanters Width of escutcheon Proportion: antitrochanter width — 100 Divergence of ischia Divergence of pubes 128 117 70 71 51 149 152 66 35.5 35.4 36.9 36.0 34.35 35.5 31.15 16.3 15.54 16.1 GO bi 14 95 16.5 13.55 13.9 11.35 12.7 13.2 11.1 11.9 13.0 12.80 13.6 14.0 13.25 12.9 11.5 16.3 14.5 16.5 14.7 12.9 6.4 5.3 5.5 5.1 17.3 16.0 17.8 14.0 14.8 17.5 17.0 18.5 18.0 16.5 18.85 46.0 43.9 43.6 51.4 43.5 46.4 43.5 36.6 36.1 36.8 38.8 38.5 36.3 36.9 93.5 107 108 103.5 106.5 97.3 111.2 114 27 Sternum. The sternum is usually very badly preserved in both cave and sand-dune skeletons, and the extremities regularly give the appearance of being abiaded, so that one may doubt whether they are complete. This applies chiefly to the tips of the median and lateral processes. On the other hand they frequently exhibit so definite a trans¬ verse truncation (PI. 12, fig. 4; cf. Owen 1883a, pi. 55) as to make one hesitate to say that parts have been lost. Bearing this in mind, one may say that, whethei the body of the sternum is wider or broader, as it may be in Anomalopteryx , it is always deeply con¬ cave ventrally, and has relatively short and broad lateral and median piocesses, the latter with a notch.* The anterior margin, viewed from the front, is stiongly cuived ventrally; from above it is slightly bowed forward medianly. The pre-costal piocesses aie usually well developed, and the notches for the articulation of the scapulo-coracoid may be distinct or vague, or a notch may be discernible on one side only. In only one of the skeletons is there preserved a bone that may be the scapulo-coracoid ; its lower portion is cylindrical and its upper flat or blade-like, but it is evenly curved throughout instead of being bent : it seems too long to be a sternal rib. There is much variation in form and relative size in the sterna of different indivi¬ duals. While, generally, the larger sterna are associated with larger leg-bones, the con¬ trary may occur, and a narrow sternum may be associated with stout leg-bones or vice versa. There is complete diversity in the size and form of the three costal articular sur¬ faces; no two sterna show the same arrangement and considerable difference may occur on either side of the same bone. The three sternal ribs, or pairs of ribs, also exhibit some diversity, but not of any great extent. Table 4. Dimensions of five sterna: A. didiformis. Auckland Museum No. 70 71 55 51 149 Tibia length 39. G 39.3 37.5 36.0 35.9 A. Breadth across the pre-costal processes . . 15.7 15.0 14.8 13.5 12.0 B. Breadth at anterior end of costal border . . 11.5 11.9 11.5 11.0 10.2 C. Width of base of median process, i.e. between the lateral notches 8.3 7.5 7.7 8.1 D. Distance across outer ends of lateral processes . . 16.0 14.5 17.0 15.0 16.0 E. Length from anterior margin to tip of median process 15.5 13.5 15.4 F. Length from anterior margin to xiphisternal notch . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5 13.2 13.2 G. Length from anterior margin to lateral notch . . 11.0 8.1 9.0 9.5 10.2 H. Length from precostal to tip of lateral process . . 15.8 16.0 15.0 15.6 Localities: North Island: Whangarei, Coromandel, Kawhia to Te Kuiti, Rotorua (Hutton), Waikaremoana, Te Aute, Lyall Bay (Hutton), Wanganui. South Island: Collingwood, Takaka, Nelson, North Canterbury, Hamilton Swamp (Hutton), Southland (Hutton). Summary. Anomalopteryx didiformis may be described as a moa of intermediate size with moderately stout limbs. Its skull has a long sharp beak, a strong mandible and a deep temporal fossa for attachment of the muscle which moved it. Its pelvis is slightly arched throughout its length and relatively slender, and the sternum has the lateral and *The “sternum of Anomalopteryx ” illustrated by Oliver (1930, 45) is that of a species of Emeus 28 median processes rather shorter and broader than the other genera; its median process is notched. The species exhibits a considerable range of variation in size and proportions of leg-bones, skull and pelvis ; but variation in the different structures are so diversely associated in different individuals that no grouping either for sex or locality can be sug¬ gested. All ranges of size and varieties of form are found in one very limited area, e.g. the barrier-wall of Lake Waikaremoar.a, where there is a time-limiting factor in the comparatively recent formation of the caves which trapped them. We have, therefore, to regard these birds as having been, in the geological sense, contemporaneous. A. didiformis occurred throughout New Zealand (?Westland) chiefly in hilly country, though it has occasionally been found on the coast, but here possibly in association with Maori cooking places. 1891 1892 May . . 1893 1893 1907 1930 1933 Anomalopteryx antiquus Hutton, 1892. “Avian Remains”: Forbes, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 23, 366. Anomalopteryx antiquus Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 24, 124. Founded on portions oi leg-bones, of which the larger tibia fragment may be regarded as the actual type, from an Upper Miocene or Lower Pliocene deposit at Timaru. Anomalopteryx cintiqiia: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 25, 14. Anomalopteryx antiquus: Forbes, Nat. Sci., 3, 318-9. Anomalopteryx antiquus: Rothschild, Extinct Birds, 202. Anomalopteryx antiquus: Oliver, New Zealand Birds, 46. Anomalopteryx antiquus : Lambrecht, Handbuch der Palaeoi nithologie, 114. The identity or relationships of this species cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. On the measurements given by Hutton (1892, p. 125) the tibia would seem to be that of Eury. curtus, a species not known to occur in the South Island. But it must be remembered that the given length (30.5 cm.) was estimated from the proximal portion of one tibia and the distal portion of another ; if the estimate were increased by only 1 cm. the length would equal that of the smallest A. didiformis and the proportion¬ ate widths of the bone would be definitely those of Anomalopteryx. Furthermore, the metatarsus subsequently described by Hutton (1893, p. 14) has all those details of con¬ figuration that have been observed to be characteristic of A. didiformis and to distinguish its metatarsus from that of E. exilis or E. curtus (see p. 58 below). It is therefore desirable to retain the species, regarding it, as suggested by Hutton (1892b, 126) as a small species of Anomalopteryx probably ancestral to A. duhfoi ims. 1884 1885 1886 1891 1892 1907 Genus Megalapteryx Haast, 1886. Megalapteryx : Haast, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 16, 576-7. Type Megalapteryx hectori Haast, nom. nud. Megalapteryx : Haast, Proc. Zool. Soc., No. 35, p. 541. Nom. nud. Megalapteryx : Haast. Trans. Zool. Soc. 12, pi. 5. p. 161. Type, by monotypy, Megalapteryx hectori Haast. Not Mesopteryx Hutton, N.Z. Jnl. Sci. new issue, 1, no. 6, p. 248. (Although “Mcsopteryx didinus” is the only species cited, it is clear, both from the measurements given and the synonymy, as well as from Hutton’s subsequent use of the name, that he was confusing D. didinus Owen with the prior D. huttonii Owen (r= Emeus huttonii , Q-V.) Palaeocasuarius : Forbes, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 24, 189, nom. nud. Palaeocasuarius : Rothschild, Extinct Birds, p. 219. Type, by original designation, Pal. haast i Rothschild (ex. Pal. haasti Forbes, nom, nud.) 29 Birds of about the same height as anTles^acute" th^0 in -y slender, antorbitals extending widely laterad. Maxilla with well-developed antrum cavity. Two species are recognised, M. didinus (Owen) which includes the smaller form iwo species aie recogmseu, , , secies to be named M. benhami, at hitherto separated as M. hectori Haast, and a 1 g P M , district present represented only by a femur and tibia from Mt. Arthur, Nelson district. 1882 . 1883 January 1884 May 1885 . 1886 December . . 1891 April 1891 November 13 1892 May 1892 May .. 1897 Juno 1897 1907 1930 1933 Megalapteryx didinus (Owen), 1883. Diuornis didin, ,s Owen, Proc. Zool. Soc. tor 1882, no. 36, p. 549 (nomen nudum) Dinornis didinus Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. London, vol. 11 pt. 8 P_^7, pK 59- ^ TYPE: incomplete individual skeleton from Queenstown in British Muse (No. A. 16 ; Lydekker, p. 277). Megalapteryx Melon Haast, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 16, 576-7 no,,,, nud. Megalapteryx hectori Haast, Proc. Zool. Soc. tor 1885, no. 35, p. 541 (none nndunM Megalapteryx hectori : Haast, Trans. Zool. Soc. London, vol. 12, pt. 5, p. 161, pi. 30. TYPE: leg-bones of an individual from Takaka in Nelson Museum. Anomaloptcryx didina : Lydekker, Cat. Foss. Birds Brit. Mus., 277. Megalapteryx ter.uipes Lydekker, ibid, 251, fig. 69A. TV PE. imperfect light tibio tarsus from, near Lake Wakatipu, in British Museum (No. 49990). Megalapteryx hectori : Lydekker, ibid, 252. Megalapteryx hectori : Sharpe, Cat. Ost. Vertebr. Mus. Roy. Coll. Surg. London, III, p. 42S. in, p. 70T Mesopteryx didinus : Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 24, p. 131. Hutton here con- Palaeocasuarius haasti : Forbes, nom. nud. Trans. N.Z. Inst., w4, 189 Palaeocasuarius velox Forbes, nom. nud., ibid, 189. Palaeocasuarius elegans Forbes, nom. nud., ibid, 189. Megalapteryx tenuipes : Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 29, 546. Anomalornis gracilis : Hutton (not of Owen), part (femur), ibid, 546. NOT Meionornis didnus : Hutton, ibid, P- 558. Hutton again uses this name for bones which are really of E. huttonii. Anomaloptcryx tenuipes : Andrews, Novitates Zoologicae, 188. Megalapteryx hectori : Rothschild, “Extinct Birds , 197. Megalapteryx hamiltoni Rothschild, ibid, 197. TYPE: left femur from Waingongoro, North Island, in British Museum, No. 32145 (Lydekker, p. 252). Megalapteryx tenuipes : Rothschild, ibid, 198. Megalapteryx huttoni : Rothschild (part), ibid, 198. Rothschild repeats Hutton’s confusion of M. didinus with E. huttonii. Palaeocasuarius haasti : Rothschild, ibid, 220. Founded on leg-bones from Mani- toto, in Liverpool Museum : femur indicated as type by Rothschild, p. 219. Palaeocasuarius velox : Rothschild, ibid, 220. Founded on leg-bones from Manitoto, in Liverpool Museum : femur indicated as type by Rothschild, p. 219. Palaeocasuarius elegans : Rothschild, ibid, 220. Founded on leg-bones from Mani¬ toto, in Liverpool Museum : femur indicated as type by Rothschild, p. 219. Megalapteryx didinus : Oliver, “New Zealand Birds”, 42. Megalapteryx hectori : Oliver, ibid, 43. Megalapteryx didinus : Lambrecht, Handbuch der Palaeornithologie, 141. Megalapteryx hectori : Lambrecht, ibid, 143. There is less material of Megalapteryx available for study than of Anomaloptcryx, but the assembly of the dimensions of fifteen individual skeletons and of certain unassoci¬ ated leg-bones (Table B) gives the same picture as that presented by A. didiformis, i.e. of a degree of continuous variation in the sizes of each of the three bones, combined with a diversity in the association of bones of various lengths in the different individuals. As was also found to be the case in Anomalopteryx, the full range in variation is exhibited by birds from one locality, in this case the limestone plateau which extends between Mt. Arthur and Takaka, west of Nelson ; nearly as extensive a range is exhibited by the speci¬ mens from Central Otago. This range of sizes may perhaps include two sex groups, but, if so, they cannot be defined, and the largest of the smaller sex must be bigger than the smallest of the other. From these considerations I have concluded that, as with A. didiformis, only one species should be recognized. The dimensions (Table B) reveal the slender proportions of the leg-bones of Megalapteryx didinus; they differ considerably in form also from Anomalopteryx didiformis. The femur, seen from the side, has a distinct dorsal curvature, which is only just dis¬ cernible in A. didiformis ; the proximal face is higher in proportion to its width, and, at the distal end, the rotular cavity is narrower and deeper. The muscle ridges (PI. 1, fig. 2) are finer than in Anomalopteryx, and not much raised. They converge towards the medullarterial orfice, behind which they diverge, the inner becoming rugose and merging with the inner wall of the popliteal depression, the outer remaining fine and disappear¬ ing on the outer wall of the depression. The tibia (PI. 2, fig. 2) is not only straighter, but its proximal end is less expanded ectally, and the procnemial ridge is deflected out¬ wards much less than in Anomalopteryx. In the metatarsus (PI. 3, fig. 2) the proximal face, like that of the femur, is higher in proportion to its width ; the distal trochleae, not¬ withstanding the general slenderness of the bone, are sometimes expanded nearly to the same degree as in Anomalopteryx. The length and slenderness of the toes of this species have been remarked by Andrews (1897) ; it had a well-developed hind toe. Skull. We have four skulls with individual skeletons of M. didinus. That of the type is covered with skin, but certain measurements have been obtained; the others aie from specimens taken from Takaka in the Tring, the Dominion and the Auckland Museums. Their dimensions and proportions are set out in Table 5, together with those of the skuil on a composite skeleton, with leg-bones in plaster, labelled A. parvus at Tring. This latter agrees so exactly with the skull of the complete individual at Tring that I am suie it is of the same species. The characters with which the four smaller of the above five skulls (the type, the Auckland Museum, and the two Tring specimens) agree with one another and differ from skulls of Anomalopteryx didiformis are as follows: the few characters in which an observation can be taken from the type are in italics. 1. Skull slightly smaller, but of relatively greater height. Posterior aspect. 2. Swollen supraforaminal ridge and supraoccipital crest. 3. Outer margins of paroccipital processes rounded. 4. Ventral termination of paroccipitals rounded and reaching to only a short dis¬ tance below condyle. Lateral aspect (PL 4, fig. 2) . 5. Posterior (paroccipital) margin of tympanic cavity convex, and continuing evenly, without angular break into the dorsal margin. 31 Table 5. Skulls: Megalapteryx didinus. Takaka D.M. Length : total 13.2 Length : paroccipital to preorbital 8.0 4.17 Height Width at paroccipital processes 5.56 Width at squamosal prominences 6.42 Width at temporal fossae 4.1 Width between temporal ridges 2.3 Width at postorbital processes Width at preorbital processes Width of tympanic cavity Width of temporal fossa . Width of orbit Space between lambdoidal and temporal 6.78 ridges Proportions : % of length 0.0 Height . . 31.5 Paroccipital width 42.2 Squamosal width 48.6 Postorbital width 51.3 Temporal fossae width 31.0 % Temporal ridges : fossae 56.1 % Squamosal : postorbital 94.5 Nelson Tring. On Skeleton (composite) “parvus” Tring. Wakatipu TYPE didinus. Takaka A.M. 120 12.2 12.2 11.85 6.64 4.2 4.30 5.5 5.0 4.90 6.5 6.15 5.S 5.80 4.5 4.41 4.25 3.6 3.61 3.50 7.3 7.08 6.8 6.75 4.7 4.37 2.0 1.60 2.6 2.80 3.2 2.95 0.2 0.3 34.42 36.3 45.2 41.3 53.2 47.5 48.8 59.8 55.7 56.9 36.85 38.85 80.0 82.3 89.0 85.5 86.0 6. Zygomatic process slender and acute. Dorsal aspect (PL 5, fig. 2) . 7. Occipital area more nearly vertical, i.e. not sloping forward as in Anomalopteryx. 8. Lambdoidal ridge passes almost straight across instead of forming a double curve as in Anomalopteryx. 9. Temporal ridges reaching back to lambdoidals, but not extending far up on to roof of skull. 10. Slight paired eminences on roof in postorbital area. 11. Greater breadth between the supra-orbital ridges. 12. Beak with narrow nasal process, the end moderately acute and the lateral margins slightly convex, not concave as in Anomalopteryx. Ventral aspect. 18. A median swelling instead of a depression, on basipterygoid platform. 14. Basipterygoid processes small, slender, projecting obliquely forward; in Anoma¬ lopteryx they are larger, broader, and project laterally. 15. Antorbitals extending more widely laterad. (Text fig. 8a; cf. 8b, A. didiformis) . The maxillo-nasal, present only in A.M. 120, is a fine splinter expanding slightly distally. the lacrymal foramen is contained entirely within the lacrymal in A.M. 120 and Tring specimen, as occasionally in A. didiformis. 82 Characters common to skulls of M. didinus and A. didiformis. i. Post-temporal “fossa” a wide convex band instead of a narrow groove. ii. Postorbital processes project backwards. iii. Maxilla with well developed antrum cavity. An individual skeleton from Inangahua in the Canterbury Museum has only a much abraded calvarium from which no measurements can be obtained; the only character that can be noted is that in posterior view the lateral margins of the paroccipital pro¬ cesses are strongly convex. Another incomplete skull, of a juvenile skeleton from Mt. Arthur (A.M. 118), agrees with the above-mentioned skulls in respect to features num¬ bered 1 to 9 and 13 to 15 ; the other characters could not be observed. Text-fig. 8a. M. didinus: skull, ventral view. In respect to the features numbered 1 to 5, and 7 to 15, the skull on the Takaka skeleton in the Dominion Museum has the condition obtaining in Anomalopteryx, and this almost complete presentation of Anomalopterygian characters makes one wonder if it really was the skull of this particular skeleton; it is certainly exceptionally large for i . Dr. W. R. B. Oliver, Director of the Dominion Museum was, however, given to understand by the person from whom it was bought that there was nothing else in the cave fiom which it was obtained ; moreover both skull and skeleton are sub-immature. 33 , . ,, a a Mdiformis with the following slight Vertebrae. The vertebrae resem e marging of the nape vertebrae are less difference observed in two specime . , Quadrate’ in the immediately constricted at the middle, i.e. the outline is ‘Urgent posteriorly ; and succeeding cervicals the zygapop yses axe ^ gpines are larger. The ventral surfaces in the middle cervicals (10-17) the shorter and wider, and the parial of the centra are wider, the pleurapophyses much shorter a , to hypapophyses stand further apart on vertebrae 6 to 10, behind wn approach one another again as in A. didiformis. p / • (VU 0 10 11 fig 2) The pelvis is smaller and much narrower than m ZSSSSSSZ m* - i*~ - - — * - “h divergent caudad than in Anomalopteryn. The vertebral formula differs slightly : there are the usual seven pre-acetabular verte- ine veiieui , . • lveg v,v gve (35-39), instead of four (35-38), brae (28-34) ; these are followed, in six pelves, oy y ,, renresented bv acetabular vertebrae lacking transverse processes, though 39 has them lepresentea Dy splinter processes Nos. 40 and 41 then send transverse processes to meet on the pos¬ ted surface of the acetabulum, and the remainder, 42-45, or 46 (the first caudal) in a well ossified specimen (PI. 11, fig. 2) send their processes more obliquely to the sides of the escutcheon. In the pelvis figured the splinter-like transverse process of 39 joins dis- tally with the process of 40. The formula is thus 28-34 (35-39) 40-45 M. didinus instead of 28-34 (35-38) 39-45 A. didiformis. This means that there is an extra acetabular vertebra and that 40 and 41 (instead of 39 and 40) send processes laterally to the acetabulum, and 42-45 instead of 41-45 send them obliquely to the escutcheon. This difference is not altogether constant ; I have one pelvis with the formula of A. didiformis. Table 6. Pelvis: Megalapteryx didinus. A.M. 164. Tring. A.M. 115. A.M. 165. A.M. 166. Length 33.0 32.0 30.0 32.5 32.0 Width at antitrochanters 14.6 14.0 12.9 15.3 12.3 Width at pectineal tubercles . . 9.58 10.1 10.7 11.8 9.5 Width of escutcheon 12.0 10.2 11.8 10.6 Ischium length 14.5 12.0 14.3 12.3 Ischium height 5.25 3.65 4.8 3.6 Ischium divergence 14.5 13.7 16.7 11.7 Pubis length 16.0 15.5 15.5 Pubis height • • 1.5 Pubis divergence . 14.5 17.2 Proportions : % Width at antitrochanters : length 44.2 43.7 43.0 47.0 38.1 Width at escutcheon : length 36.4 34.0 36.4 33.2 Ischium divergence : width at antitrochanters 99.3 106 109 95.1 Pubis divergence : width at anti- trochanters 99.3 133 34 Sternum (PI. 12, fig. 3). This may be narrow or broad: the front margin seen from above, is straight and the pre-costal processes project more laterally, or more vertically, in broad or narrow sterna respectively; the narrow sterna are more deeply convex ven- trally than the broad ones. The lateral processes are more slender, and extend further behind the median processes than in Anomalopteryx. A median notch is presen m our sterna ; a fifth lacks it, but I am not certain that the median process is entire m this case. The coracoid articular facets are deep in one Auckland Museum sternum, and also m t e Tring and Dominion Museum specimens; they are not developed in two otheis. e ace for the third sternal rib is sometimes separated from the other two. Andrews (IX J ) does not mention the scapulo-coracoid ; it is present in A.M. 120. Distribution. M. didinus had previously been recorded only from the South Island, but leg-bones have recently been secured fr >m the Makirikiri swamp, north o anganui. It seems to have been much more restricted in range and numbers than A. didiformis, bu it was not uncommon on the Takaka tableland and, apparently, in Western Otago, was possibly a high country species. Megalapteryx benhami n. sp. The fer- ur and tibia on which this species is founded are from a cave on the Mt. Arthur table-land, Nelson. They were found together by the writer, hut ; as they were lying among mixed bones (though of other genera) it can only be inferred that they were of the same individual bird. They exceed in size the largest Anomalopteryx bones, are considerably larger than M. didinus. They are relatively rather stouter than t bones of M. didinus, approaching Anomalopteryx in this respect; but e presence o narrow rotular cavity and fine, clearly defined muscle ridges in the femur, an a scarcely deflected procnemial ridge in the tibia, indicates that the species is o j. ega.ap ci \ a • femur, although deficient in the middle of the shaft, better exhibits the charac¬ ters and is therefore designated the actual type. It is a with the name of Sir William Benham, F.R.S., whose studies of individual skeleto moa have materially assisted this review. The dimensions and proportions of the type femur, and of the tibia which probably belonged to it, are: — Femur : 29.3 = 100 9.2 31.4 3.9 13.3 9.3 31.7 12.5 42.7 Tibia : 45.4 = 100 10.9 24.0 3.9 8.6 6.3 13.87 10.6 23.35 1891 Genus Pachyornis Lydekker, 1891. Pachyor„is Lydekker, Cat. Foss. Birds Brit. Mas., 361. Type, by original designa- tion, Dinornis elephant opus Oven. The species of Pachyornis differ from those of Anomaloptaryx and having the femur and metatarsus shorter m re ^ *°"ku° a smaller temporal fossa £ “nd« ^ and temporal ridges *» “ With> ^-diverging lateral processes. 35 Four species- two, in the North Island, smaller than Anomaloptcryx didiforwis and not rplative size" is indicated by length of leg-bones as follows:— P. elephantopus (Owen) max. min. P. pygmaeus (Hutton) max. min. P. mappini n. sp. max. min. P. oweni (Haast) max. min. Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. 32.9 59.7 25.5 29.3 45.7 21.0 • 40.0 (estimate) 18.0 • 34.0 (estimate) 15.6 19.4 33.2 15.5 16.1 27.8 12.5 14.3 26.4 11.6 13.5 22.5 10.1 1856 July 30 1858 September 28 1870 . 1875 July .. 1891 April 25 1891 . 1892 April 1892 . . 1893 . . 1894 1895 1907 '1930 1933 Pachyornis elephantopus (Owen), 1856. Dinornis elephantopus Owen, Proc. Zool. Soc. tor 1S56, pt. 24, p. 54. Founded upon a skeleton in British Museum (Lvdekker, p. 322) made up from mixed bones of several individuals found buried in sandhills at Awamoa, Oamaiu Point. TYPE: No single bone having as yet been selected as the type, I here designate the left metatarsus of this skeleton as such: it was figured by Owen (see next citation). Dinornis elephantopus: Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc., vol. 4, pt. 5, p. 149, pis. 43, fig. 1 (femur), 47, fig. 5 (tibia) and 44, fig. 1 (metatarsus, LECTOTYPE). Dinornis elephantopus: Owen, ibid. PP. 159-64, pis. 46-47 (composite skeleton). Dinornis elephantopus: Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc., vol. 7, pt. 2, p. 123, pi. 10 (skull). Dinornis elephantopus var. major Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 7, p. 274; Table A, oppo¬ site p. 278. Founded on three femora, tibiae and six metatarsi from Hamilton Swamp, Otago, in Otago Museum. LECTOTYPE (here designated) metatarsus from the above specimens with the following dimensions: — 23.65 11.7 7.5 14.8 19.0 Pachyornis elephantopus : Lydekker, Cat. Foss. Birds Brit. Mus., 321. Pachyornis immanis Lydekker, Cat. Foss. Birds Brit. Mus., 343. TYPE: A meta¬ tarsus from the South Island in the British Museum (A. 168). Euryapteryx ponderosus Hutton, N.Z. Jnl., Sci., new iss., vol. 1, no. 6, 249. Aveiage measurements of leg-bones, type not indicated. LECTOTYPE here designated, metatarsus from Hamilton Swamp in Otago Museum with the following dimensions: 20.95 10.0 5.8 12.3 14.8 Pachyornis rothschildi Lydekker, Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1891, no. 33, 479-482. Types: associated right femur, and the two tibiae and metatarsi; locality unknown. Tring Museum. Euryapteryx elephantopus: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 24, 135 (part; Type No. 1). Euryapteryx ponderosus : Hutton, ibid., 137, part. Pachyornis inhabilis Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 25, 11. TYPE: Incomplete individual skeleton from unknown locality, “probably somewhere in Canterbury” in Canterbury Museum (No. 9.2.23). Pachyornis valgus Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 25, 12. Types: A pair of tibiae from Enfield, in Canterbury Museum, but only one now identifiable. “Pachyornis immanis?” : Parker, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 26, pp. 224, 225 (skull, probably of this species). Pachyornis elephantopus: Parker, Trans. Zool. Soc., 13, p. 375, pi. 60, figs. 22. Skull, (pi. 8, fig. 3, of this paper). Pachyornis immanis: Rothschild, “Extinct Birds,” 215. Pachyornis rothschildi: Rothschild, ibid., 215. Pachyornis inhabilis: Rothschild, ibid., 216. Pachyornis valgus: Rothschild, ibid., 216. Dinornis novae zealandiae: Oliver (part), “N.Z. Birds,” pp. 39-41. Euryapteryx irnmanus: Oliver, “New Zealand Birds,” 52 Euryapteryx immanis: Lambrecht, Handbuch der Palaeornithologie, 150. 36 The following are part Euryapteryx gravis. I860 1874 June 1874 July .. 1875 1891 November 13 1891 November . . 1892 May 1890 June 1907 1930 1933 Dinornis elephant opus: Haast, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 1, 85. Dinornis erassus Haast, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 1, 86, 87 (No. 16). Palapteryx elephant o pus : Haast, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 6, 427. Palapteryx elepliantopus : Haast, The Ibis (3), 4, 209. Dinornis erassus var. major Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 7, 276-7, Table A, opposite p. 278. Founded on numerous leg-bones not now distinguishable from the following. Dinornis elephant opus : Hutton, ibid., 276-7, Table A. Dinornis erassus: Hutton (part, femora and metatarsi maxima) ibid., 276-7, Table A. Dinornis gravis: Hutton (part, maxima; includes types of Euryapteryx ponder osus Hutton) ibid., 277, Table A. Pachyornis elephantopus : Sharpe, Cat. Ost. Vertebr., Mus. Roy. Coll. Slug., London. III., p. 436. Euryapteryx elephantopus : Hutton, N.Z. Jnl. Sci., new issue, vol. 1, No. 6, p. 249. Euryapteryx gravis: Hutton, N.Z. Journ. Sci., new issue, vol. 1, No. 6, 249. Euryapteryx gravis: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 24, 138. Euryapteryx gravis: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 28, 638, 647. Pachyornis immanis: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28, 642, bones from Kapua. Ibid. p. 647 — bones from Enfield. Euryapteryx ponder osa: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28, 638; bones from Kapua. Pachyornis elephantopus : Hutton, ibid., 641. Pachyornis inhabilis: Hutton, ibid., 642. Euryapteryx ponderosa: Hutton, ibid., 647; bones from Enfield. Pachyornis elephantopus : Hutton, ibid., 647. Pachyornis inhabilis: Hutton, ibid., 648. Pachyornis elephantopus : Rothschild, Extinct Biids, 214. Pachyornis pondcrosus : Rothschild, ibid., 216. Euryapteryx elephantopus : Oliver, N.Z. Birds, 51. Euryapteryx pondcrosus : Oliver, ibid., 52. Euryapteryx elephantopus: Lambrecht, Handbuch der Palaeornithologie, 150. Euryapteryx pondcrosus : Lambrecht, ibid., 150. This species was founded upon a skeleton made up of mixed bones, but, as Owen in his description referred especially to the size of the metatarsus (1858a, p. 55), and as it most distinctively exhibits the character of the species, it is appropriate to select it as the type In fact, the terms in which Owen discussed it (p. 58) might perhaps be regarded as a designation of it as the type. “I had hitherto regarded the metatarse of the Dinornis erassus as presenting the most extraordinary form and proportions of all the restored species of huge wingless birds of New Zealand; but it is strikingly surpassed in robustness and in great relative breadth and thickness by the same bone of the present species, which chiefly on that account I have proposed to name elephantopus” Not many individual skeletons or sets of leg bones have been secured, and only two with the skull. On the other hand, numerous mixed bones have been recovered from swamps, from among which series might be arranged of, say, the tibia, which would seem to indicate varieties or subspecies. But the few individual skeletons we alrea<-*y have are sufficient to indicate that the femora and metatarsi would not conform to the grouping on tibiae, and that small tibiae are sometimes associated with larger femora and metatarsi than those belonging to much larger tibiae (Table C.). A considerable range of sizes is therefore included under the name elephantopus. P. immanis was separ¬ ated by Lydekker as an extremely massive form ; but if this is to be recognized it will be known as P. major (Hutton) . Hutton (1875) clearly established this name when he said of the discoveries in the Hamilton Swamp: “The excavations have certainly brought to light a variety of D. elephantopus , larger and more exaggerated than any yet recorded by Prof essor Owen or by Dr. Haast.” The accompanying dimensions in his Table A opposite p. 278 indicate a 37 , in the metatarsus for which bird with the same ™ass^® m®ta^rSa J^posed the name immanis. The lectotype that Lydekker subsequently (1891, p. 3 ) 1 l bones in the Otago Museum is I have nominated from among the Hamilton swamp bones slightly shorter than Lydekker s type, but is q . . , Oliver (p. 41) included Pachyorms^HscMH m D, norms -»ova ^ ^ ^ M the length and distal width of t e 1 ia. e measurements ; their form, however SSS.S51 who* 0h.r.ctoi,tic inflected ^ ’ • • h-Viq fvnp iprr bones of Pachyornis nihabihs and P. valgus. tibia appears again m the type leg-bones oi i auiyu Thi. fe.tor. provide, . mfe " b^T.ttojoi.SToogh \Z ssirrcfii •< »• - “ -s:i „„c, h.,.l ridg, .hove in P- S tion of the trochlea in Eu. gravis (PI. 14, ct. tigs, la ana j ,. „ t , d the proximal end is also usually higher in cUphantopus In the smal ler North s species the actual inward inflexion of the tibia is as great ^ur^pte^x « “ but a strongly-developed inner flange near the extensor bridge and the higher ^eicon dylar ridge of the metatarsus in Pachyornis form even better means of distinction f o Euryapteryx (Text-figs. 9a, 9b) . Fig. 9a. Text-fig. 9. P. mappini (9a); I do not think that a smaller variety (ponderosns) of P. elephantopiis will need to be recognized. In case it should, it may be as well to mention that the basis of ponderosus, according to the original synonymy, was bones from Hamilton Swamp described by Hut¬ ton (1875) as D. gravis. These included an associated tibia and metatarsus, the only two Hamilton Swamp bones that Hutton (p. 275) could say were those of an individual bird. These would have been appropriate for selection as the type of ponderosus; but they can¬ not now be recognized. The bone selected as lectotype is the Hamilton metatarsus in Otago Museum nearest in size to the dimensions of the above-mentioned metatarsus ; it happens to have a high intercondylar ridge and is accordingly to be included with Pachyornis (elephantopiis) rather than Euryapteryx (gravis). Skull. In identifying large South Island skulls, particularly from among mixed swamp material, the commonest need will be to determine whether a cranium separated from its beak is of P. elephantopus or Euryapteryx gravis. Comparative details bearing on this point will therefore be as desirable as differences between the species of Pachyornis itself. 38 The description which follows is taken from the skull of the recently-found Pyramid Valley specimen, xxB, in the Canterbury Museum; the figures (Plate 8), however, which were drawn and processed some time ago, are from other sources. The only other skull of this species definitely found with its skeleton is that of the type of P achy arms inhabihs, also in the Canterbury Museum. In occipital view the skull has a well-arched roof; the supra-foraminal ridge not being swollen, the supra-occipital median crest and the supra-occipital fossae remain well- defined. In these respects P. elephant opus resembles Eu. gravis and differs from the small North Island species of its own genus. The paroccipital depressions are wide and shal¬ low. The outer border of the paroccipitals is sinuate ; the processes extend doWn to about half way between the levels of the condyle and the mamillar tuberosities ; the latter are large, separated by a distinct arch, and are rather more outstanding than in Eu. gravis. In dorsal view the lambdoidal and temporal ridges are separated, and the anterior and posterior lambdoidal ridges enclose a flat triangular area. The temporal ridges encroach upon the occiput and curve backward in a characteristic sweep towards the lambdoida ridges (PL 8, fig. 1), while in Eu. gravis (PI. 6, fig. 3) they extend upward rather than backward, and to a much less extent. The temporal area of the roof is flattened m the Pyramid Valley skull, but is arched or has a double tumidity in other specimens. In lateral view the posterior, paroccipital, border of the tympanic fossa is convex and curves into the upper border (PI. 8, fig. 2), whereas in Eu. gravis (PI. 6, fig. 1) the hinder margin is less curved and meets the upper at less than a right angle; m both species the upper border of the fossa is a lobed overhanging ledge. The postorbital process is moder¬ ately wide, in other skulls it is narrower; in Eu.gravis it is usually very Wide. The long acute premaxilla has a large median septum which has a thin semi-transparent central area; in Eu. grains the septum is short and opaque. In general the skulls of P. elephantopus exhibit their differences from Eu grains m the pre-lambdoidal area; in the occipital area the resemblances are more marked than the differences. In the small North Island species of Pachyorms, however, the occipital region resembles that in Emeus and differs markedly from the small Euryapteryx species which have the occipital characters of the large species. Sternum and Pelvis. The sternum in three individual skeletons is broad with widely diverging lateral processes. The pelvis also is broad, but does not exhibit such mar e differences from Eu. gravis as appear between the small North Island species o ac lyorms and Euryapteryx. Distribution. P. elephantopus is known so far from Canterbury and Otago only. _ The heaviest forms (i.e. the types of major and immemis) were from °tago I these are peculiar in that they appear to have acquired a second coating of bone as though y an overgrowth. 1891 November 1892 May . . 1895 • • • • 1897 June 1907 • • • • 1930 • • • • 1933 • • • • Pcichyornis py£ma.eus (Hutton), 1891. irvaPterw pygmaeus Hutton, N.Z. Jnl. Sci., new issue, vol. 1, No. 6, p. 249. Founded of average measurement, of leg-bones, of Which a pair of metatarsi from Takalta in Nelson Museum were subsequently (Hutton 1892b, 139) selected as the types. uryapteryx pygmaeus: Hutton, Tians. N.Z. Inst., , , 61 figs 20 21 •csoMerv » species 0 : Parker, Trans. Zool. Soc. 13, pt. 11, p. 378, pi. 61, tigs. 20, 21. aZnus pygmaeus: Hutton, Trans. N.Z Inst. 29 555. aehyornis pygmaeus: Rothschild, “Extinct Birds 217 ,, . j,.. c. Oliver, “New Zealand Birds, 53. uryapteryx p g • Lambrecht Handbuch der Palaeornithologie, 152. uryapteryx pygmaeus: naniDrecui, 39 Table 7. Dimension of skulls of Pachyomis elephant opus , P. pygmaeus; Eurapteryx gravis. c °3 Eb § ’ds snouig » ‘ds Mtooq sliding ^ 'H Sbus ‘P^I ,J ■(is sn3luU ^ •adAj, 'suzdaB 'g •muvunq ‘g ladXj,^. O (M9>I.n3j L 'ds H sliding) judyuvcf sliding ^ •U019I931S I'BnpiAipni “ LD tH CO O ID CO NCqCijlDOOffl^t-fflO CO ID OO CD T— I O CD OS c- Ol OS to ?A X ‘dT'iL •£/ ‘ds XiUdtfosdft tH tH H 00 C-- <35 CO OO T-t O CO tH CO 03 CO p O 00. CD ID OS LD ^idi>^^®ifiN'NMMeonieooo«!®oio CO ID CO co - 03 CO o tr-; H ID CD OO ID LD os 03 03 CO CO tH CO CD p o to CD tH ci LD CO CO 'H OO CA oq (M 03 CD CO o o CD t> H CO p H H ID CD ci LD H as CD 03 03 CO o CO ta CD LD H Tj! CO O ID t- N LD as o r~ ID as K*“i rO m -j— » l=H . CO . . IS) 'Zj & *£ h-> 5-1 . be a) . P< •Ei 03 0 co co _£} •— i 5-1 c« p -up o o • • • J® o • co . be • *1-1 TO ^ C3 •^c! * • ® Cl • 0 CO . rj . fe »|H O •“ 3 aja co hn0M W ^>0003 -§ g § “ | g . | ts a . s s ^ s ^ . g •■ g S 1 ** | g • e ? S - sp|2S|?g • • 1 1 1 •& § 3 i I sis «“ls“Qgo •■ ~ - § |i| .. • -rH >J • . • H J Cd 0 ,H -P ,H CIS • tn rH Curri Q W f_2 CD Oh $_ ,H O L +J ,1] -H d £ ■3 » o 8 a ^ A 3 O rt r ” S ..ft ^ c3^c'303c^'ti|l> o S - § ’Sgsi a^ss-g-sggsi «aem, do not differ from their size-fellows in Euryapteryx by displaying greater inward inflexion of the lower end of the tibia; instead, they have a projecting flange, not found in Euryapteryx, oppo¬ site the osseous bridge for the extensor tendon (Text-figs 9a 9b). The higher proximal intercondylar ridge of the metatarsus in Pachyornis is a better-developed diffeience in these small North Island species than in the larger South Island birds. 41 1927 August 15 . . 1927 . The following 1891 November . . 1892 May 1907 November 12 1930 . 1933 . . • • • • The type, a.so two smaller skeletons “»i£™ excellently preserved skulls. Typica ' ; where they exhibit a distinct teryx sp. fT (i.e. P. except m the occiptal reg ^ ^ Qf the skulls of swelling of the supra-foramma margi • ’ , tpe sparp beak widening more The, di«.r from the ** «< ZZ-i „Jl» (PL 7. 3, ,nd . ,WM Euryapteryx exilis. Pachyornis mappini. Text-fig. 10. Eu. exilis (10a); P. mappini (10b): beak and maxillary antrum. the type and the Amodeo Bay skull exhibit the same backward sweep of the temporal ridge as in “Mesopteryx sp. (3,” but this is not so marked in the smaller skulls. A.M. 84 and 85. The maxillo-nasal is a long slender splinter-bone lying close-pressed to the front margin of the antorbital (PI. 4, fig. 4), and expanding below where it fits against the maxilla. Comparing skeletons of equal size in Pachyornis mappini and Euryapteryx exilis , the skulls of the former are larger (Table 8) . The sternum (PI. 12, fig. 5) has a broad straight anterior margin and widely diverging lateral processes. In all five skeletons I have the coracoid pits are developed (faintly in A.M. 150) and in four of them there is a small scapulo-coracoid ; A.M. 150 from which it is missing is a very incomplete skeleton. Pelvis. The pelvis in P. mappini is considerably flatter dorso-ventrally and relatively wider than in Anomalop teryx, and has widely diverging ischia and pubes. Viewed from the side (PI. 9, fig. 4) the dorsal margin is very slightly arched ; the front margin which emerges from the dorsal margin by an unbroken curve forms a sharp angle with the ventral iliac border. Seen from above (PI. 10, fig. 4) the anterior portions of the ilia show wide concave expansions of subquadrate outline. Immediately behind the pro¬ jecting ribs belonging to vertebrae 29 and 30, the margins are constricted, forming a narrow waist. The acetabular region is wide and the escutcheon is also wide, with its sub-parallel lateral margins. The proportionate width at the antitrochanters is on the aver- 42 age slightly greater than in Eu. exilis or Anomalopteryx ; the proportionate width of the escutcheon is definitely greater, as also are the posterior divergences of the ischia and pubes. The dorsal view of the escutcheon in P. mappini differs from Anomalopteryx in that while in the latter its front margin is formed by the abruptly diverging iliac crests and the lateral margins extend widest anteriorly, in P. mappini the iliac margins diverge more gradually and the escutcheon is widest further aft. This greater width posteriorly in the ilium of P. mappini is seen more markedly on the ventral side (PI. 11, fig. 4). Table 8. Dimensions of skulls, Pachyornis mappini and Euryapteryx it exuis. Auckland Museum No. Total length Length : parocc. to preorbital Height Width at parocc. processes Width at squam. prominences Width at temporal fossae Width between temp, ridges Width at postorbitals . . Width at pre-orbitals . . Width of tympanic cavity Width of temp, fossa . . Width of orbit % squam. width : length % width at temp. foss. : length % postorbital width : length . . % temp, ridges width : fossae width % parocc.-preorb. length : total length Pachyornis mappini. Euryapteryx exilis. Pachyornis mappini. Euryapteryx exilis. 124 3 85 360 12.00 10.70 11.2 10.70* 7.00 6.15 6.35 5.90 4.00 3.67 4.20 3.90 5.30 5.06 5.20 5.15 6.30 5.60 6.08 5.65 4.56 3.90 4.30 3.80 3.86 3.26 3.50 3.15 6.77 6.28 6.90 6.20 3.56 3.24 3.80 3.20 1.75 1.72 1.90 1.65 2.65 1.78 2.35 1.85 2.75 2.54 2.40 2.70 52.5 52.3 54.3 52.8 38.0 36.4 38.4 35.5 56.4 58.7 61.6 58.0 84.6 83.5 81.4 83.0 58.3 57.5 56.7 58.0* Table 9. Dimensions of Pelvis : Pachyornis mappini and Euryapteryx exilis. Auckland Museum No Length Width at antitrochanters Width at pectineal tubercles Width of escutcheon . . Ischium length Ischium height Ischium divergence Proportion % — • Width at antitrochanters : length Width of escutcheon : length Ischium divergence: antitrochanter width hi 124 3 160 31.9 31.0 29.0 15.9 15.2 15.0 12.7 11.3 • 14.4 13.0 11.1 16.2 16.0 15.5 5.3 4.0 3.5 22.0 20.2 18.0 49.2 # 51.7 45.1 . • 138 132 120 43 Table 10. Dimensions of Sternum: P. mappini and Eu. cxilis. Auckland Museum No. A. B. C. B. E. F. G. Breadth across pre-costal processes . . Breadth at anterior end of costal border Width at base of median process Distance between outer ends of lateral processes Length: anterior margin to tip of median process Length: anterior margin to lateral notch Length: anterior margin to tip of lateral process P. mappini. Eu. cxilis. P. mappini. Eu. cxilis. P. mappini. Eu. cxilis. Type. 124 Type. Wang. M. 150?. 3 84 5 14.5 13.9 14.5 13.5 11.3 10.0 12.5 10.2 11.0 11.0 9.5 7.8 9.5 6.8 7.5 6.5 7.0 5.0 21.0 12.8 19.0 15.5 18.5 14.0 14.7 14.8 11.5 13.5 # 11.2 7.6 • 5.2 8.0 5.4 7.0 14.8 7.8 13.0 16.0 13.0 14.5 Distribution: North Island generally. Skeletons have been obtained from sand dunes at Doubtless Bay and Coromandel, from caves at Mangaotaki and Waikaremoana, and leg-bones and a skull from the Makirikiri swamp deposit near Wanganui. Pachyornis oweni (Haast), 1886. Dinornis ozveni Haast, Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1S85, no. 31, 482. Nomcn nudum. Dinornis oweni Haast, Trans. Zool. Soc. 12, pt. 5, 171-182, pis. 31-32. Type: by original designation, incomplete skeleton from near Whangarei; in Auckland Museum, A.M. 384. The following references include part Euryapteryx curt us. 1891 April 25 1891 November 13 1891 November . . 1892 May 1893 . 1897 . 1907 . 1930 . 1933 . Anomalopteryx oweni: Lydekker, Cat. Foss. Birds, Brit. Mus. 280. Anomaloptcryx curta: Lydekker, ibid, 281. Anomalopteryx curta: Sharpe, Cat. Ost. Vertebr. Mus. Roy. Coll. Surg. London, III., 433. Ccla curt us: Hutton, N.Z. Journ. Sci., new issue, vol. 1, no. 6, 248. Ccla curtus: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 24, 127. Anomaloptcryx curta: Parker, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 25, 2. Anomalornis ozveni: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 29, 549. Ccla curtus: Hutton, ibid, 550. Ccla curtus: Rothschild, Extinct Birds, 205. Ccla ozveni: Rothschild, ibid, 206. Anomaloptcryx curtus: Oliver, New Zealand Birds, 46. Anomaloptcryx ozveni: Oliver, ibid, 46. Anomaloptcryx curtus: Lambrecht, Handbuch der Palaeornithologie, 145. Anomaloptcryx ozveni: Lambrecht, ibid, 145. Of this species, the smallest of the moas, I have only three incomplete skeletons, including the type, and some sets of leg-bones (Table D). The localities are Pataua, near Whangarei; Tom Bowling and Doubtless Bays, in North Auckland; sand-dunes at Wai- kawau, Coromandel; and Westmere, a suburb of Auckland. They include quite slender bones, and one, a tibia from unkncAvn locality, that is exceptionally stout. P. ozveni is the size-fellow of Euryapteryx curtus, but is rather smaller. 44 Genus Emeus Reichenbach, 1852 * 1S52 1852 1874 June 1874 July . . 1891 Emeus Reichenbach, Av. Syst. Vo'g., p. xxx. Type, by monotypy, Dinornis crassus Owen. Syornis Reichenbach, ibid. P- xxx. Type, Dinornis casuarinus Owen. Meionornis Haast, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 6, 426. Type, here selected, Dinornis casuarinus Owen. Meionornis Haast, Ibis (3), 4, 212. Mesopteryx Hutton, N.Z. Jnl. Sci. new issue, vol. 1, no. 6, p. 248. Type, by mono¬ typy, Dinornis huttonii Owen (referred to by Hutton in error as D. didinus Owen). The limb bones of the species of Emeus are stouter than those of Anomplopteryx, but less stout than in Euryapteryx. There are only four phalanges, including the claw, in the outer toe. The skull has a smaller temporal fossa, the temporal ridges reaching neither back to the lambdoidal ridge nor far up on the roof. The beak is less narrow than in Anomalopteryx, and rounded at the tip (Text-fig. 11b). The pelvis is flat with widely diverging ischia and pubes. Text-fig. 11. Euryapteryx exilis. Two species: separated as to length of leg bones as follows Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. E. crassus (Owen) maximum minimum 29.4 26.5 52.0 43.7 24 20.0 E. huttonii (Owen) maximum minimum 24.4 22.0 39.7 35.8 18.7 16.3 *The following prior generic names approach g nousm. As i read the rules, Eumaea, Geyer 1834, Lep.; Eumaeus , Koch ^ 1843 • slmyllarity; if however Article 35 be held only specific names are to be rejected . for ’ 1852. to apply to generic names Emeus Reichenbach will De repiaceu uy oyotms 45 Emeus crassus (Owen), 1846. 184C July 1846 December 28 1848 April 22 1850 or 1852 1869 May . . 1870 January 1875 1891 April 25 1891 November 13 1891 November . . 1892 May 1895 October 1896 June 1897 June 1906 June 1907 . 1930 1933 . iQ/ifi nt 14 n 46. Founded on a Dinornis crassus Owen, Proc. Zoo . °c. ° ^ Iglan’L LECTOTYPE: meta¬ femur and metatarsus from ai the present place of deposition tarsus, nominated by Lydek er . ■ and the Auckland Museum (A.M. 298). .... ,7 Founded on two femora, a tibia and a meta- Dinornis casuarmus Owen Y, . tibia, nominated by Lydekker (1891a, tarsus from Waikouaiti. LE M „ p»ov c0ll Surgeons, 257); its present plaee ol deposition is unknown, Mus. Roy. Loll. or British Museum. ooo i *n ^o- 2 (tibia: • . Owen Trans Zool. Soc. vol. 3, pt. 4, p. 322, pi. 4/, ng. ^ O-iuxi. Dinornis casuarmus: Owen, irans . auu ptatarsus). LECTOTYPE), pi. 46 (femur), pi. 48, fig. 3 ( t?pt0TYPF ^ „ ooe r>i 48 ties 4 and 5 (metatarsus, LECTOTYPE, Dinornis crassus: Owen, ibid, P- 325, pi. 48, figs. figure reversed). 5> p. 357 (Skull of Aptornis). Non Dinornis casuarmus: Owen, nans, Emeus crassus: Reichenbach, Nat. Syst. Vogel, p. xxx. Syornis casuarinus : Reichenbaeh, ibid, P- xxx. Dinornis casuarinus: Haast, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 1, 82, no. 1 no. 2 (2nd edn., 1875, Dinornis rheides: Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. 7, pt. 2, 132, pi. 12 (s ). Dinornis casuarinus: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst 7, 275, skeleton Dinornis crassus: Hutton (part: femur mm., tibia max. and min., metatarsus .. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 7, Table A, opp. p. 278. , • t vrfp.Wpr Cat Foss Birds Brit. Mus. 25 1. Anomaloptcryx casuarma: LydeKKer, e■ extending nbliguely the “IIS" *!! front .1 tide » deep jit, «nd in front of the pit , targe, £«* trnter, « »rr.w band for the eee.nd rib; in front of thin ' The sterna of C.M. xiii F and xiii G (Text-fig. 14) are unusually long and narrow, and deeply concave, especially F. The median and lateral processes are long and slender and their ends bend down ventrally ; this, however, may be due to warping m drying. Both have a median notch. No. xiii F has an extra costal facet behind the depression that normally occurs just behind the third facet; this extra facet also has a depression behind it. A similar condition was noted in M. didinus (PL 12, fig. 3). The condition o the coracoid facet varies; it may be distinct, shallow or absent; or present on one side and absent from the other. Pelvis: The pelvis of E. crassus is longer and more massive than in Anomalopteryx oi Megalaptcryx. The pre-acetabular centra are short and wide, and usually 35 has transverse processes ; the acetabular portion of the column is also broad and compressed post-axially though there are generally four vertebrae included therein. The post-acetabular region is very broad and strongly braced with transverse processes extending from 39 (fre¬ quently 38) to 46, and, occasionally, 47. 50 The usual formula is 28-35 (36-38) 39-46 as in Dinornis. There is no interpolated pre-acetabular vertebra with transverse processes; but in one case there is 35a lacking a process, and occasionally there are only 28-34 pre-acetabular vertebrae. In only one pelvis did 39 lack transverse processes. C.M. xiii D and xiii F have 47 (first caudal) fused to the pelvis. These variations are recorded in the formulae as follows: • • • Vlll B. 28-35 (35a-38) 39-46 viii C. 28-34 (35-38) 39-46 ix A- j ; 28-35 (36-38) 39-46 1 i 28-34 (35-38) 39-46 X B. , ' 28-35 (36-39) 40-46 < i 28-35 (36-38) 39-46 viii D. " 28-35 (36-37) 38-47 xiii F. < f 28-35 (36-38) 39-47 < 1 28-35 (36-37) 38-47 28-35 (36-39) 40-47 Table 14. Emeus crassus: dimensions of pelvis. C.M. C.M. C.M. C.M. C.M. ? viii B. viii C. x B. xiii F. xiii D. Length Width at antitrochanters Width at pectineal tubercles Width of escutcheon Height of pre-acetabular portion Ischium length Ischium height Ischium divergence Pubis length Pubis height Pubis divergence Proportions % — Width at antitrochanters: length.. Width of escutcheon: length Ischium divergence: antitrochanter width 41.1 41.9 37.6 40.6 44.4 21.9 22.2 22.4 23.0 22.9 15.5 15.5 15.5 17.0 16.7 19.8 17.5 17.2 20.3 18.9 12.5 11.8 12.0 • — 12.5 18.5 17.5 15.0 18.5 22.0 5.5 4.5 6.8 7.0 6.0 - - - 24.7 23.0 24.25 25.4 - - 21.7 22.5 27.0 28.0 - - 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.5 - - 29.5 26.5 26.5 27.4 53.2 52.9 59.5 — • 52.1 — • — • 45.8 - - • - * 111 . . - . 112.8 Table 15. Emeus crassus: dimensions of sternum. Widths A B C D Lengths E V G H Depth of notch viii B. viii C. ix A. xiii F. xiii G. xiii D. xiii E. 17.8 17.7 12.3 13.5 10.5 10.8 19.5 19.5 16.5 17.0 9.5 9.1 18.2 17.3 13.0 — • 3.5 nil 17.5 16.9 19.55 19.85 18.6 13.0 12.1 15.0 16.20 14.4 10.8 8.0 10.5 11.1 12.0 — 18.0 19.0 21.3 • — - - - 20.5 23.5 21.9 • — 9.5 10.0 23.5 24.3 — - - 23.0 10.5 10.5 14.3 15.5 19.5 21.1 — — 9 1.0 2.4 none Distribution ■ South Island: Glenmark, Pyramid Valley, Enfield, Kapua, Kia Ora, Wai- kouiti, Hamilton Swamp. The only North Island bones referable to E. crassus are a skull from Maryborough and a tibia from Te Aute in the Dominion Museum, and a tibia from Te Aute in the Canterbury Museum. 51 1869 May • • 1875 July . . • • 1879 . . • • 1892 May • • 1893 May • • 1895 October • • 1896 Juno 1896 Juno • • 1897 June • ♦ 1907 November 12 1930 . . • • 1933 • • • • • • 1934 August 20 • • Emeus huttonii (Owen), 1879. • j-jvt • ■ Haast Trans. N.Z. Inst. 1, PP- 82, 83 (2nd ed. 18/5, pp. 23, 24). Dinorms didiforms. Haast, iia dUKformit: Hutton. Trans. N.Z. Inst PP* • Leg-bones from Table A, minimum, femur and metatarsus. D!nornisTu«onii Owen, Extinct Birds of N.Z., 430. Founded on above leg-bones (D. didiformis: Hutton 1875): lectotype nominated below. ,. j. TTntton (nart) , Trans. N.Z. Inst. 24, 129. E^uryapteryx com pacta Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 25, 11. Type: a tibia from Enfield, in Canterbury Museum. Mesopteryx didina: Hutton, ibid, _ o7o Dis gi fies 39 and Mcsoftcnx species 7 Parker, Trans. Zool. Soc 13, pt U, P- a?8, pis. 01 0 44 pi. 62, fig. 54. Type: skull on a “skeleton of M . didina m Ctago Museum (cf. Benham 1934, p. 92). . . TTntton Trans. N.Z. Inst., 28, pp. G36, 642. Bones from Kapua. Mcionornis didZis: Hutton! Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28, pp. 646, 648. Bones from Enfield. Meionornis didinus: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst 29 Megalapteryx huttonii: Rothschild (part). Extinct Birds, 199, pi. 41. Emeus huttonii: Oliver, "New Zealand Birds,” 49. Fmcut huttonii- Lambrecht, Handbuch der Palaeornithologie, 147. eZus huttonii: Benham, Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z., 64, 87, pis. 5-8. Founded on mixed leg-bones from Hamilton Swamp, Otago (Hutton, 1875) . Lectotype, hereby nominated, a right metatarsus with the following dimensions (Otago Museum) : 17.0 6.3 3.7 8.0 10.0 _ 100 38.0 18.0 45.0 55.2 The indefinite manner of the proposal of this species has been the cause of considerable confusion. Hutton (1875) gave the dimensions of two femora, seven tibiae and six metatarsi from Hamilton Swamp, Central Otago, under the name Dinornis didiformis. He remarked, “The bones I have arranged under D. didiformis belong possibly to a new species. The tibia is well marked and quite distinct,* but the femur and metatarsus that I have asso¬ ciated with it pass almost into D. casuarinus , but are rather smaller.’’ Owen (1879), after quoting Hutton’s remarks as above, states, “Possibly the Dinornis of the South Island, with the tibia characteristic of the D. didiformis of the North Island, may need to be noted, for the convenience of naming the bones, as Dinornis huttonii." Hutton (1892, and again in 1896 and 1897) confused huttonii with didinus (Megalap¬ teryx)]' and Rothschild (1907, as Megalapteryx huttonii) perpetuated this misunderstand¬ ing. Lydekker made no mention whatever of huttonii. Oliver (1930, p. 49), in recounting how E. huttonii had been proposed, states that Owen selected the tibio-tarsus as the type, but this was not the meaning of Owen’s phrase, “with the tibia characteristic of the D. didiformis of the North Island.” Owen was pro¬ posing the species on the basis of Hutton’s earlier description; having no specimens, he could not do otherwise. Hutton’s observations were to the effect that, while the tibia was characteristic of D. didiformis, the femur and metatarsus were different; they were stouter, like D. casuarinus, but smaller than that species. Now this is exactly what E. huttonii is: a species with a tibia hardly distinguishable from that of Anomalopteryx didi¬ formis, but with shorter and stouter femur and metatarsus ; besides, if we were to regard the tibia as the type we could not satisfactorily separate E. huttonii from A. didiformis. * Obviously Hutton means “quite distinct as didiformis ” This is important. fBenham (1934) has discussed this adequately. At present there are, in the Otago Museum, only three tibiae from Hamilton Swamp with dimensions approximating to those given by Hutton, and they might be either didifonnis or luiUonii; but the femora and metatarsi are, as Hutton said, much stouter, and this is the real basis of Owen’s proposal. The selection just made of one of these metatarsi as the type is, therefore, in accordance with the original indication of the characters regarded as distinguishing the species. Benham (1934, p. 93) noted a dis¬ crepancy in the dimensions from Hutton for this species as quoted by Oliver and him¬ self. The explanation is that Oliver gave Hutton’s maximum figures, while Benham recorded the mean. Table E, giving the dimensions of E. huttonii, reveals the paucity of individual skele¬ tons of this species, and I have considered it advisable to add to the table average measurements recorded by Hutton from Hamilton. Hutton’s smallest femur and meta¬ tarsus of his “ casuarimis” Hamilton (1875) also fall here. The Wakapatu specimen des¬ cribed in gratifying detail by Sir William Benham (1934) is the only complete skeleton known of this species, for the Hamilton Swamp mounted specimen, also in the Otago Museum is, Sir William notes, very doubtfully of a single individual. A partial skeleton in good condition has been recovered from Pyramid Valley swamp. It has already been noted that the skull of the Wakapatu skeleton is small, but, as Benham points out, its shortness is due to the shortness of the beak, and “it may be a few millimetres short of its actual length.” I would suggest 10.5 cm. as its approximate true length. The beak is of the moderately rounded type noted in E. crassus; the maxillo- palatine is missing, so the condition of the antrum cannot be stated ; but in an exactly similar skull of unknown locality in the Dominion Museum the antrum is expanded, as it is in the two E. crassus skulls from Pyramid Valley that have the maxillopalatine preserved. The Wakapatu skeleton has a narrow sternum and typical Emeine pelvis with a flat escut¬ cheon and with ischia and pubes exhibiting considerable divergence. The pelvic formula, according to Benham, is 28-35 (36-37) 38-46: it is not possible to ascertain, now that the skeleton has been mounted, whether the small vertebra no. 38, with its neural canals set high up and difficult to observe at any time, is present as it is in all other pelves I have examined, but, assuming that it is, the formula would be 28-35 (36-38) 39-47. This supposi¬ tion is supported by a comparison of the disposition of the transverse processes of the post- acetabular vertebrae with the arrangement in the Pyramid Valley skeletons of E. crassus (p. 51) . Distribution: Swamp localities in Canterbury and Otago and sand-dunes at Wakapatu. Genus Eury apteryx Haast, 1874. Type, herein selected, Dinomis gravis Owen. 1874 June . . Euryapteryx Haast, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 6, p. 427. 1874 July . . . . Euryapteryx : Haast, Ibis, ser. 3, vol. 4, p. 213. Note: Ccla. used by Reichenbach for Dinomis curtus, was not the proposal of a new genus; it was merely assigning D. curtus to Mohring’s pre-Linnean genus Cda Gesl. Vog. 4, 43, 1752; (cf. Hutton 1895a, 158). Lydekker stated (p. 298) of his species Emeus gravipes that it was “the type species of Euryapteryx but this species was not included under the generic name at the time of its original publication and cannot therefore be nominated as the type. Of the two species included in the genus by Haast, one, rheides, is indeterminate; and I there¬ fore select the other, Dinomis gravis Owen, as the genotype. 53 , V nf Parhvornis in the sizes, proportions and The species of Euryapteryx dup L in occurring as a North Island group relative lengths of the leg-bones a ' ’ group of large massive species, of small relatively slender forms an a .o ^ & broad> roUnd-tipped beak They differ from all other geneia . 42) and they share with Emeus the ’^te^uTaid^' reduction" of the phalanges of the outer toe to four, including the claw joint. • no , i \r TaianH «neoies are recognized, but all the South Island spedmOTsTrtlncMed "in one species of which an occasional example has been obtained in the south-eastern portion of the North Island. 1870 January 1872 . . 1873 May . . 1874 June 1874 July . . 1879 • • • • 1891 April 25 1891 April 25 1891 November 13 1895 October 1898 190G 1907 1910 . . 1930 .. 1933 Euryapteryx gravis (Owen), 1870. Dinornis gravis Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc., vol. 7, pt. 2, p. 141, pi. 14. Type a skull (possibly of an individual skeleton) from the “Kahamin (= Kakanm) River, Otago at til at time in the possession of the Baroness Burdett Coutts. Dinornis gravis: Owen, Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1872, No. 38 6°5 Dinar,, is gravis: Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc., vol. 8, pi. 6, PP- -61-380. pis. 58 61. Euryapteryx gravis: Haast, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 0, 42 Euryapteryx gravis: Haast, “The Ibis,” ser. 3, voL 4 No 15, 209. Dinornis gravis: Owen, “Extinct Birds of New Zealand, pp. 34.-364, pis. 41, 42 42a Emeus gravipes Lydekker, Cat. Foss. Birds, British Museum, p. 297 Type: Meta¬ tarsus from Kakanui River, Otago, in British Museum (No. A. 1591). Dinornis gravis: Lydekker. Cat. Foss. Birds. Brit. Mus., 298 (note under Emeus gravipes). Emeus crassus: Lydekker (part, skull), ibid.. P- 311. Emeus gravipes: Sharpe, Cat. Ost. Vertebr. Mus. Roy. Coll. Surg, London, III. , 434 Emeus sp. Barker. Trans. Zool. Soc., 13, 379, pi. 61. Skull from Shag Point, m Otago Museum. Emeus sp. (3 Parker. Trans. Zool. Soc. 13, p. 379. Skull on (composite) skeleton named E. gravis from Glenmark, in Canteibuiy Museum. Euryapteryx ponderosa: Hamilton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. o0, 445. Emeus crassus: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 38, 66 (type of Eu. kuranui Oliver). Emeus parkeri Rothschild, “Extinct Birds,” p. 210. TYPE: skull named Emeus sp. 7 Parker, 1895, p. 379. Emeus booth i Rothschild, “Extinct Birds,” p. 210. Type: Skull of Emeus sp. a Parker, 1895. Emeus haasti Rothschild: “Extinct Birds,” p. 210. Type: Skull of Emeus sp. ft Parker, 1895. Emeus gravipes: Rothschild, Extinct Birds, 210. Euryapteryx crassa: Benham. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 42, 354. Euryapteryx kuranui: Oliver, “N.Z. Birds,” 52. TYPE: skeleton from Castle Point (North Island) in Canterbury Museum. Euryapteryx gravipes : Oliver, New Zealand Birds, 53. Euryapteryx kuranui: Lambrecht, j bid., 151. Euryapteryx gravipes: Lambrecht, Handbuch der Palaeornithologie, 152. The references to the figures of the mandible of D. gravis in Plate 14 of Trans. Zool. Soc. 7 and Plate 81 of Owen’s “Extinct Birds” are very muddled both in the text and the Description of Plates; but a careful reading of the descriptions and of the compari¬ sons with crassus and rheides makes it clear that, in each of the above two publications, figure 5 is of rheides and fig. 6 is of gravis, and that the latter has a broad blunt beak. There is a point to be discussed with regard to this species. Dinornis gravis was origin¬ ally proposed by Owen (1870, p. 141) for a skull, and subsequently (1878, p. 361) leg- bones were described as being of the species. Lydekker assumed that the leg-bones were not those of an individual; he included the skull under Emeus crassus (p. 307, 311), and designated the metatarsus as the type of a new species, Emeus gravipes. 54 Owen, however, when describing the skull, had said, “Many characteristic parts of the skeleton of the same individual bird were obtained by William Fenwick, Esq., at the Kahamin (= Kakanui) River, Middle Island, New Zealand, and were presented by that gentleman to Miss A. Burdett Coutts. They were confided to me by that lady for deter¬ mination in 1867 ; and the grounds on which I came to the conclusion that they represented a species not previously recognized may be communicated at a future period to the Zoological Society. ... I give a description of the skull of the new species in the present Memoir.” Owen intended to state the specific characters of the new species later, and this he purported to do when, in 1873, he described the leg-bones. Of the latter he said (p. 379), “The specimens of Dinornis gravis above described and figured were dis¬ covered in the bed of the Kakamai (= Kakanui) River, South Island, by Wm. Fenwick, Esq. I am indebted to the kindness of the Baroness Burdett Coutts for the loan of the specimens.” The skull and leg-bones would therefore appear to be those of one and the same indi¬ vidual, and Lydekker’s proposal of a new name for the metatarsus would seem to have been unnecessary. Yet, notwithstanding Owen’s explicit statements quoted above, there is still reason, in the nature of the bones themselves, to doubt their individual associa¬ tion. The femur is much longer in proportion to the tibia and metatarsus than in any undoubtedly individual skeleton of Envy apteryx, and, judging from Owen’s figures, its distal end is too wide to articulate with the tibia ; moreover, its proportions accord with those of Emeus crassus (cf. xiii. F Pyramid Valley, Table F), and not with those of Euryaptcryx. It might be considered that with this doubt before us we should continue to retain Euryaptcryx gravis (Owen) for the skull and Eu. gravipes (Lyd.) for the metatarsus. It is not necessary, however, to prove the individual association of skull and metatarsus; it is sufficient that their specific identity be established and this is satisfactorily confirmed by means of individual skeletons in the Otago and Canterbuiy Museums. These show that same association of broad-beaked skulls, narrow sterna and four- jointed outer toes with characteristic form of leg-bones in large South Island birds as is found in much smaller North Island forms. The tibia is less inflected than in same sized species of Pacliyornis, the metatarsus is usually, though not invariably, less constnctec at the middle, has a lower proximal intercondylar ridge and a less abruptly projecting middle distal trochlea. The metatarsus (type of Eu, gravipes Lyd.) is now in the British Museum (No A. 1591). having been acquired in 1923 from the estate of the Baroness Burdett Coutts, Miss Dorothea M. A. Bate has informed me in a recent letter that the following bones came with it, and are entered in the catalogue as “one of the type specimens : A. 1592 — tibio-tarsus, figured Owen, T.Z.S. 8, pi. 59, figs. 1-3. A. 1593 _ right femur, figured op. cit. pis. 60 and 61. A. 1594 — pelvis, described op. cit. p. 369. Unfortunately I was not aware of the status of A.1591 when I measured it, and thus did not enquire as to whether other bones were associated with it. c, ...» In occipital view (PI. 6, fig. 2) the skull has a well arched vault; the supra- xst* .»■>«» •• i» ~ “e w“J the supra-occipital fossae being consequently better defined. The distance between anterior and posterior lambdoidal ridges varies ; there is a depression on each side above and mesad of the paroccipitals, but it is not deep and pit-like as in E. crassus. The par- 55 occipital processes have convex or sinuate outer borders and extend downwards to a varying degree ; the mamillar tuberosities also vary in s,ze and stance apart, but are usually less prominent than in Pack, elephaniopus. In lateral view (pi. 6, fig. D the posterior border of the tympanic «ivity is oblique and may be straight, sinuate, or slightly convex; it meets the uppei bmdei at a light angle or less. The upper border projects outwards, forming a ledge above the tympanic "Sy anteriorly it curves evenly forward on to the zygomatic process, whicn is fairly acuteand varies in length. The space between temporal and lambdoidal ridges is from 5 to 10 mm wide; it continues outward to form a broad flat space above the squamosal prominence.' The post-temporal fossa is relatively rather wider and deeper than in Emeus The post-orbital processes are usually proportionately wider than in Emeus, with the outer portion projecting straight down vertically or slightly forward. The margin of the orbit is either an even arch, sinuate, or, rarely, forming a wide ang e (Emeus sp. y Parker). The orbits face more to the front than m Emeus. The lachrymal foramen is formed as usual, by a notch in the antorbital closed anteriorly by the maxi o- nasal In dorsal view the wide spread of the post-orbitals and the forward aspect ot the orbital margin are readily apparent ; the anterior portion of the temporal fossa is definitely overhung by the temporal ridge. Sometimes there is a double tumidity on the roof ; usually it is a single slight eminence. Certain skulls with their own beak (from Shag Point in Otago Museum; Emeus sp. a Lydekker in British Museum; and E. kuranui Oliver in Canterbury Museum) have the premaxilla and mandible short, broad and widely rounded terminally. In the Riverton specimen (pi. 6) the premaxilla is strongly downcurved and the tip abruptly tiuncated, the mandible is very stout and more depressed terminally than in Emeus. These broad¬ billed skulls have a characteristic maxillo-palatal structure ; the palatals are only slightly curved, the maxillo- jugal is stout and nearly straight, meeting the palatal at an acute angle, and there is no antrum cavity. Pelvis: The pelvis in Eu, gravis is larger, relatively broader and more massive than in Em, crassus. Its pre-acetabular portion, though short, is not especially splayed laterally, but it is strongly expanded at the acetabulum and antitrochanters. The width at the antitrochanters is nearly half the total length. The pre-acetabular dorsal iliac margin is convex ; posteriorly the ilia diverge abruptly, curving outwards to almost right angles with the long axis to form the anterior margins of the escutcheon. The latter is flat, short and very broad, its lateral margins are convex and converge strongly pos¬ teriorly. The vertical laminae or sides of the escutcheon are strongly deflected inwards (they slope outwards in Dinornis). The isehia are generally, but not always, strongly divergent posteriorly. As with the other genera the formula of the vertebral elements comprising the pelvis varies, i.e. : 28-35 (36-38) 39-47 28-34 (35-39) 40-46' 28-35 (36-38) 39-?47 28-35 (36-38) 39-? Distribution: Eu. gravis, like Pack, elephaniopus, was common in Canterbury and Otago; it has also been obtained on Stewart Island (Benham 1910) and I have a set of leg-bones from Mt. Arthur tableland, near Nelson. E. kuranui Oliver might perhaps have been regarded as a more slender North Island form, but it is matched in slenderness by the Stewart Island specimen (Table H) and the only other North Island specimen is a quite stout metatarsus from Portland Island in the Hawke’s Bay Museum. 56 1848 April 13 1848 April 22 1866 July 6 1891 1891 April 25 1927 August Eury apteryx geranoides (Owen), 1848. Palapteryx geranoides Owen. Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1848, p. 1, nomen nudum. Palapteryx geranoides Owen. Ibid., P- 7, nomen nudum. Dimensions given of a skull, but insufficient to identify it except by reference to the paper next cited. Palapteryx geranoides Owen. Trans. Zool. Soc., Vol. 3, pt. 5, p. 361, pi. 54, figs. 1-5. Non Dinornis geranoides: Owen, Trans. Zool, Soc. vol. 5, pt. 5, pp. 400-402, pi. 65, figs. 5-6 (femur of Eu. exilis); pi. 67, figs. 5-6 (metatarsus of Eu. ex His). Anomaloptcryx dromacoidcs : Lydekker (part), Cat. Foss. Birds Brit. Mus., 268 (B.M. right metatarsus, 21793). Non Anomaloptcryx geranoides Lydekker, Cat. Foss. Birds Brit. Mus. 288. (Eu. exilis). Dinornis expunctus Archey. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 58, 152. The name geranoides has been a source of confusion through its having been given originally to a skull which could not satisfactorily be affiliated with any particular leg- bones. Those of the next species, Eu. exilis , have from time to time been attributed to it, but the several individual skeletons we now have of exilis show that the geranoides skull is much too large for that species. It is, however, definitely of Euryapteryx. Finality as to its relationship must await the discovery of an individual skeleton; we have, how¬ ever, from coastal dune-areas, a few sets of leg-bones (Table G) of Euryapteryx (one accompanied by a large broad beak) considerably larger than those of exilis, but much smaller than gravis. They are indeed appropriate in size to the skull of geranoides; more¬ over another Euryapteryx tibia (B.M. 21793; Lydekker, p. 268) of the same dimensions was found at Te Rangatapu, the dune deposit that yielded the type skull. There seems to be good reason for associating the calvarim and leg-bones together and for regarding Eu. geranoides (Owen) as the largest of the North Island group of three small species of Euryapteryx. Localities : North Island — Te Rangapatu, Doubtless Bay, Tom Bowling Bay. 1866 July 6 1891 April 25 1891 November 13 1895 October 1897 June Euryapteryx exilis Hutton 1897. Dinornis geranoides: Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. 5, pt. 5, pp. 401-2, p. 67, figs. 5 and 6. (B.M. 21706, Lydekker, p. 289). Anomalopteryx (?) geranoides Lydekker, Cat. Foss. Birds Brit. Mus. 288, fig. 65C, p. 317. Founded on four tibiae from Te Rangatapu, of which that first men¬ tioned, No. 21789x, is here nominated as the TYPE. Anomalopteryx geranoides: Sharpe, Cat. Ost. Vertebr. Mus. Roy. Coll. Surg., 634. Mesoptcryx sp. a Parker, Trans. Zool. Soc., 13, pt. 11, 378, pi. 61, figs. 28, 41. Euryapteryx exilis Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 29. 652, pi. 48, fig. C. TYPE: Skele- ton from Wangaehu, in Wanganui Museum. See under Pachyornis lnappini for references part niappim. The retention of geranoides Owen as the name for the last species occasions the rejec¬ tion of Anomalopteryx geranoides Lydekker for this, which is also a species of Euryapteryx. The next, and only other, name available is Euryapteryx exilis Hutton, which is accord- ingly adopted. The type of Eu. exilis is a skeleton from Wangaehu in the Wanganui Museum. Dr. Oliver, who discussed the doubtful association of the skull with this ske e- ton, and at that time (1930, 49) concluded that the cranium might have belonged to it but not the beak, has since drawn my attention to the fact that the skull at present, on the skeleton is not the one figured by Hutton (1897, pi. 47). The latter was a typical Euryapteryx skull with a broad beak apparently firmly fused in position. Description : This species provides as good an example as Anomalopteryx did, f omits of the undesira¬ bility of using dimensions and proportions of a series of only one of the leg-bones in e er- mining species. The Tables of Measurements A and H show that the tibiae of these two 57 , ntlv. moreover, although tibiae of exilis species differ but little and by no ““M ®°“ J ’ t the middle of the shaft and more 5is**Ti — ns. in exilis are immediately apparent. The average lengths of femur and metatarsus in these two spemes, expresse percentages of the length of the tibia, are T m. c ... 59.6 =100 44'3 E'e " " " ' mi =100 45.4 A. didiformis . . Eu. exilis, like P . mappini, was thus a shorter, rela^e1^ s flange' andby bird than A. didiformis. It differed from P, tarsug> Somewhat similar differences the lower proximal intercondylar rising o i a' didiformis i.e. at the proximal separate the tibia and metatarsus of Eu. ex is and h (15b) end (Text-fig. 15) the inter-condylar ridge (t.r.) is higher in a. Text-fig. 15. E. exilis (a, c) ; A. didiformis (b, d) : metatarsi, proximal and distal ends. and anteriorly it expands and rises to form a swelling on the front of the bone. The distal trochleae are much larger in E. exilis, the inter-trochlear spaces being thereby much reduced. Seen from above, the middle trochlea . is rather shorter m A. didiformis, and the inner and outer trochleae have each a more distinct groove on then distal face. ’ The depression on the ectal surface of both inner and outer . trochlea is deeper and subcircular in A. didiformis (Text-fig. 15d) and is more of a wld^ shallow groove in E. exilis (Text-fig. 15c), and, viewed from the side the lower margin of the shaft in E. exilis curves gently into the hinder border of the inner trochlea, which is somewhat angular and not evenly curved below. In A. didiformis the shaft curves down moie quickly and the lower margin of the trochlea is rounded. Skull. Comparing the skulls of this species and of Eu. curtus with those of like-sized Pachyornis skeletons, the Enryapteryx skulls are definitely smaller (Table 8, p. 43). Differ¬ ences in form are the lack of a pronounced supraforaminal swelling in Enryapteryx, in which also the much smaller temporal fossa extends upwards instead of backward as m Pachyornis; the wide, round-tipped beak and characteristic maxillo palatal structure m exMs and curtus have already been noted as characters defining the genus Enryapteryx. In lateral view the dorsal outline in exilis usually shows an eminence above the post¬ orbitals, and a lesser one above the pre-orbitals: these, if present, are very slight in Anomalopteryx, but may be present in Pachyornis (PI. 4, fig. 4). The lambdoidal and tem- 58 poral ridges are separated by a space of varying width (3.4 to 7.5 mm.), which continues outwards on to the squamosal prominence as a flat area bounded antero- laterally by a well-developed posterior temporal ridge which separates it from the nai- row, concave post-temporal fossa. (In Anomalopteryx the confluence of the lidges restricts this supra-squamosal area which the very low posterior temporal ridge scaicely separates from the post-temporal fossa). The posterior and upper margins of the tym¬ panic cavity usually form an angle. The temporal fossa is very small in E. exilis ; it is smaller than the orbit. Its lesser encroachment on the roof is indicated by the range of percentages distance between temporal ridges : width between temporal fossae,” from 81.4 to 88.7 (cf. 52 to 70 in A. didiformis). The mid-temporal ridge, so prominent in A. didiformis, is se om indicated in E . exilis. The post-orbitals project straight down or slightly forward, as m P achy amis, instead of backward in Anomalopteryx. Maxillo-nasals are not preseived in any of the skulls of exilis or curtus; but they are all incomplete specimens from sand-hills, and this small bone would have been one of the first to be lost. It will be recalled that it was well-developed, but discrete, in Eu. grains. Vertebral Column. The vertebrae in Eu. exilis agree with those of P. mappini in being narrower than in A. didiformis. The nape cervicals have the usual subquadrate . dorsa outline; but 3 and 4 are narrower than in A. didiformis , as are 5 and 6 also, except m com¬ parison with those individuals in A. didiformis, in which 5 and 6 assume the form of tne ordinary cervicals (i.e. with long, narrow post-zygapophyses) . Otherwise there is the same kind of variation between individuals : i.e. the change from double to single neural spines mav occur on either 19 or 20, or the change from parial to median hypapophyses on 18, . , or 20. In the pelvic vertebrae 28, 29, and sometimes 30, the paired submedian hypapo- physial projections stand farther apart than in Anomalopteryx, and hypapophyses may also appear vaguely on 40 to 44. The grouping of the pelvic vertebrae is normally as in Anomalopteryx, with variations as indicated in the following formulae . TYPE : E. exilis AM. 3 A.M. 160 A.M. 83 28-34 (35-38) 39 — broken 28-34 (35-37) 38-45 r 28-34 (35-38) 39-46 1. 28-35 (36-38) 39-46 28-35 (36-38) 39-45 (46) The pelvis in Eu. exilis is shorter than in A. didiformis and relatively wider Its dorsal iliac margin (PI. 15, fig. 2a) is intermediate in curvature between that o /. < ' 'foi s • 9 fig 3) and P mappini (PI. 15, fig. la) ; the front margin is deeper and more round y curved than in the other two. Seen from above (PL 15, fig. 2b) the ilia -teriorly a e ag-ain intermediate between A. didiformis (PI. 10, fig. 3) and P. mappini (PL 15, fig. lb) m the degree of horizontal splaying of the lower front margin .and the constriction m fron of the acetabulum. The dorsal iliac margins diverge poster uorly, . ^duafiy m ^ « as in P. mappini, not abruptly as in A 2c) t^ fu SSSSll centrfin frTtTthfacetebulum form a shorter, broader mass than in P niappini and 1 didiformis ■ the post acetabular column is narrower, with concave longitudinal curvatuie as in A didiformis, instead of broad and straight or with slightly convex longitu in curvature (P map ini) The ischia and ilia diverge posteriorly more than m A. didiformis and less than in P. mappini. The pelvis of Eu. curtus differs from that of Eu. exilis m size only. 59 The Sternum in Eu. exilis (PI. 12, fig. 6) is narrow, its fron t margin 13 5 sl J ’ the lateral processes show only moderate divergence and the median i prow ^ * t notched. In only one is there a depression, on one side only which represent^the coracoid facet; no scapulo-coracoid has been found so far, but have been by no means complete. Distribution. North Island: Wangaehu (Type), Te Rangatapu, Doubtless Bay. 18 4 G July 1846 1852 1866 Eurvapteryx curtus (Owen), 1846. Dinornis curtus Owen, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, Ft. 14, p. 48. Type: by subsequent designation (Lydekker 1891a, 281) tibia from the North Island; its piesent place of deposition is unknown; probably British Museum or Museum of Royal College of Surgeons. , _ ... . Dinornis curtus Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. London, vol. 3, pt. 4, p. -25, pi. . o figs. 3, , o. Ccla curtus Reichenbach, Nat. Syst. Vogel, p. xxx. . Dinornis geranoides: Owen (part: femur) Trans. Zool. Soc. 5, p. 400, pi. 60, figs. 5, (B.M. 21781, Lydekker p. 283). . Dinornis curtus : Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. 7, pt. 5, p. 353, pi. A, figs, (metatarsus). See under Pachyornis ozueni for references part Eu. curtus , part I . December 1871 January river# m Eu. curtus (Table I) is separated by size only from Eu. exilis (Table H) . With the ex¬ ception of the type, which is from an unspecified North Island locality, ail the specimens are from Doubtless Bay. The following table indicates the dimensions and proportions of the skull wherein Eu. curtus and P. ozueni differ, i.e. the longer skull in P. ozueni, its greater preorbital width, the greater width and depth of the temporal fossae and the rather less width of the orbit. Table 12. Skulls of P. ozueni and Eu. curtus. P. oweni. Eu. curtus. Whangarei TYPE. Doubtless Bay Doubtless Bay Doubtless Bay Doubtless Bay Doubtless Bay Auckland Museum No. 384 150a 5 364 180 4 Total length 10.5* 10.45 10.15 10.00 9.75 9.60 Length: parocc. to preorbital .. • 5.90 5.93 5.85 5.70 5.55 Height 3.90 3.76 3.70 3.60 3.60 3.37 Width at parocc. proc. . . . 4.60 4.80 4.50 4.55 4.36 Width at squam. prom. . . 5.50 5.40 5.58 5.55 5.37 5.23 Width at temp, fossae . . 4.15 3.82 3.95 3.95 3.80 3.60 Width between temp, ridges . . 2.95 3.28 3.37 3.32 3.30 3.14 Width at post-orbitals . . 6.20 6.16 6.28 6.25 5.75 5.60 Width at pre-orbitals • 3.17 3.00 3.05 3.05 2.85 Width of tympanic cavity • 1.60 1.44 1.55 1.34 1.44 Width of temp, fossa . • 2.44 1.86 1.65 1.97 1.72 Width of orbit • 2.47 2.50 2.50 2.54 2.26 % Squam. width : length • 51.6 54.9 55.5 55.0 55.5 % Width at temp, foss.: length • 36.5 38.9 39.5 38.9 37.5 % Post-orbital width: length .. • 58.9 61.8 62.5 58.9 58.3 % Temp, ridges width: fossae width. . . 85.8 85.3 96.0 86.8 87.2 % Length parocc. -preorh. : total length • 56.4 58.5 59.3 9 57.8 ^Estimated. 60 1843 184G 1852 1891 Genus Dinornis Owen, 1843. Dinornis Owen, Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1843, pt. 11, p. 10. Type, by monotypy, Dinornis novac-nealandiae Owen. Megalornis Owen, ibid., 19 (note of withdrawal, in favour of Dinornis, of MS. name ascertained before publication to be preoccupied by Megalornis Gray 1841). Palapteryx Owen, Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1840, pt. 14, p. 46. Type, by monotypy, Dinornis ingens Owen. Movia Reichenbach, Nat. Syst. Vog., p. xxx. Type, by monotypy, Dinornis ingens Owen Moa Reichenbach, Nat. Syst. Vog., p. xxx. Type, by monotypy, Dinornis giganteus Owen. Tyloptcryx Hutton, N.Z. Jnl. Sci., new issue, vol. 1, no. 6, p. 247. Genosyntypes: D. gracilis Owen, D. (Tyloptcryx) torosus Hutton, D. struthioides Owen; D. torosus is here selected as the Genotype. Owen, in reading to the Zoological Society his paper containing the first description of a species of Moa, used the generic name Megalornis. On discovering that the name was preoccupied by Megalornis Gray 1841, he wrote to the Society withdrawing it and substituting Dinornis. In actual publication in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society, Dinornis appears on p. 8 and the note of withdrawal of Megalornis on p. 14; the latter therefore has no status or significance in the Dinornithidae. Lydekker (1891a, 224 foot¬ note), in stating that Palapteryx was founded on two species, Dinornis ingens and D. struthioides, was referring to Owen’s paper in Transactions Zool. Soc., vol. 3, Dec. 1846; but in Owen’s earlier paper, Proceedings Zool. Soc., July 1846, only one species, D. ( Palapteryx ) ingens, is mentioned; this is therefore the type species of Palapteryx. Characters of the Genus. Tall moas with long, straight, slender leg-bones; meta¬ tarsus longer than the femur, tibia usually more than twice as long as femur; skull broad and flat, beak wide at base, decurved at tip and with a wide flattened median ridge. The occipital region slopes forward more than in the other genera, exposing more of the condyle in dorsal view; a space between lambdoidal and temporal ridges extending out¬ ward over the squamosal prominence. Large tympanic cavity and temporal fossa ; post¬ temporal fossa relatively longer than in the other genera ; maxillo-palatine enclosing a large antrum cavity with a wide posterior aperture. Cervical vertebrae relatively longer and narrower than in the other genera, and bearing a single (not bifid) neural spine; vertebraterial canals laterally compressed, becoming narrow slits in the posterior cervicals. Sternum broad; of the two depressed regions near to the anterior margin, that of the left side is always the deeper; lateral processes widely diverging behind, median process well-developed, distinctly notched. The scapulo- coracoid is better developed in Dinornis than in the other genera. The coracoid portion is subcylindrical and forms a very wide angle, with the flatter and more slendei scapula. It exhibits considerable variety in the form of details: in some cases there is a long shallow depression posteriorly in the coracoid near the scapular junction, but it is so irregular in size and form that I hesitate to indentify it with the glenoid cavity. I have been unable to trace an earlier reference supporting Hutton s statement (1892, p. 120, Palapteryx) that a glenoid cavity (and, therefore, possibly a wing-rudiment) is present in “ dromaeoides ” (i.e. novae-zealwidiae) and “ plenus ’ (i.e. torosus ) Range of variation in proportionate width of leg-bones (percentages of the length). Proximal. Mid. Distal. Girth. Femur . . max. 40 19 44 53 min. 34 13 36 45 Tibia max. 26 9 16.5 24 min. 19 6.4 11.6 17 Metatarsus max. 30 15 42 40 min. 21 10 26 27 61 • r\f Dim nr ni ? from North Island leg- Species of Dinorms. °wen describee! three ^ & considerably larger bones: D. novae-sealandiae about the heig . ’ieg occur in the South Island, bird, and the still larger D. giganteus. Three simi ^ were identical with the and the conclusions of students have differ > heavier South Island form North Island .pad..- Ow,„ - _f S’STJiS” «- '» of D. mgens ( Pahptcry x u,g,n, vrtl a...oo -. - 86P nmv,e.,ea! endive. In the 1891b Hutton proposed D. t orosus for the South “f™ and D. maxim„s as latest revision of the group Oliver (19 ) ^he measurements now separate species, but has suppressed D. to ustns an ' t while leg-bones of the same recorded for all three species, or pairs of spe< 1 ^*£1" b grange to a greater size and proportion are found in both 1Slands the South Island b rds * length and are nearly always relatively stouter than the North Island speci f The difference is not merely one of general size an Pr°P°^0"' the two from mixed bones indicate a greater difference between the ”Jatarsl J a the islands, and study of individual skeletons shows even “° “J^nsth and proportion femora and tibiae are frequently of the same, or nearly the same length P P n sets from both islands, a marked difference is to be noted in the much .more slendei metata/si of the North Island birds. This difference may even be discerned - the North Island tibiae, which, while of approximately the same f to the more width as South Island tibiae, are narrower at the distal end to co w . . , ,. ,n. -fv, fViam A difference m form also to oe noteu is slender metatarsi which articulate with them. A relatively that North Island metatarsi, though narrow m transverse m ddle width, arerelat y thicker antero-posteriorly and may thereby have approximately the same girth It is if the two outer metatarsal components had been pinched together and It emi € i one i a been squeezed out to the rear. Another difference, almost invariably noted, is the gi eater spread of the distal metatarsal trochleae in the South Island species. On account of the above mentioned differences it is proposed to retain the £ °£d Island species as distinct from their South Island representatives, - D. novae-sealandiae, D. ingens and D. giganteus, separated from one another by ““ height- and, in the South Island, D. torosus, D. robust, is and D. maxima r also diffe ‘ g from each other by increased height and distinguished from their North Island siz - fellows by ranging to a greater height and by possessing stouter leg-bones, particularly the metatarsus. Measurements from individual birds and from a large number of leg-bones indicate o i i -i _ i _ • ^ cnonioa novae- sealandiae. ingens. giganteus. torosus. robustus. maxi nuts. Femur . . max. 31 35 41 33 36 46.5 min. 25 32 37 25 33 38.0 Tibia max. 56 74.5 96.5 65 75 99 min. 45 62 76 50 69 77 Metatarsus max. 32 42 53 33 42 55 min. 25 33 43 26 35 41 r.o. it is not always pobbiuit; tu ucimc ° ° the species The limits are selected partly by where the smaller number of bones occur in a continuous series, partly by definite breaks, and in part indirectly from the individual skeletons. _ becomes the authority for this name. 62 For instance, the distinction as to length of tibia between ingcns and novae-zealandiae is readily apparent (i.e. between 62 cm. and 56 cm.), but the metatarsal lengths in a long series of bones run more closely together. Nor do the individual skeletons give us direct information, because the smallest metatarsus of an individual of ingens is 34.9 cm. and the longest metatarsus of an individual of novae-zealandiae is 31.35 cm., while there are unassociated metatarsi of lengths varying from 34.2 to 31.7 cm. Of two small breaks in this intermediate series of metatarsal lengths, that between 33.02 and 31.7 cm. is greater than one between 34.9 and 34.2 cm., and some support for accepting it as the dividing point between the metatarsi of the species may be obtained indirectly from the individual skeletons. Thus, in the individuals of ingens , the lowest percentage “metatarsus : tibia” lengths is 53, and 53% of the shortest unassociated ingens tibia (62) is 32.8, say 33. Again, in novae-zealandiae individuals, the highest percentage “metatarsus : tibia lengths is 56, and 56% of the longest novae-zealandiae tibia (56) is 31.35. Too much reliance should perhaps not be placed on this distinction, but it is at least a shade better than an entirely arbitrary one. If it should be maintained, D. gracilis Owen will be included under D. ingcns instead of D. novae-zealandiae. The names used in this paper for the first two species of Dinornis are novae-zealandiae for the smaller and ingens for the larger, but it may be that they should be known les- pectively as struthoides and novae-zealandiae. A statement concerning them has been submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, and one would have preferred to wait for the Commission’s opinion before publishing. War conditions may, however, delay the Commission’s decision and, as the present opportunity of print¬ ing may not be available at all if it is deferred, it has been decided to publish at once and to include a note on the point at issue. The problem centres on fixing the type specimen of D. novae-zealandiae , the first moa species proposed by Owen. The name first appeared in Proceedings of the Zoological Society, July 1843, the type material being a femur, a tibia and a metatarsus, not of an individual bird. Owen intended this paper to be merely a preliminary advice of his forth¬ coming paper in the Transactions of the Zoological Society ; but as this advance notice contained a valid, albeit brief, description, it must stand as the formal proposal of the species. Between whiles Owen had changed his mind. He had discovered that he had bones of two species before him, but, instead of applying the name novae-zealandiae to one and a new name to the other, he ignored his earlier proposal and gave entirely different names, struthoides and ingcns, to his two species. The sequence of even s in is seco.i paper was as follows : — 1. On p. 244 he clearly indicated the metatarsus of the earlier paper as the type of D. struthoides. viz.: “. . . the tarso-metatarsal m3... must indicate a second species which I shall call Dinornis struthoides. 2. On p. 247 he equally clearly indicated the tibia of the earlier paper as the type of D inaens thus- “These considerations induce me to regard t 2 as indicative of a distinct species of Dinornis which ... may be provisionally called ' Dinorms mgensd 3 He then proceeded to describe the femur, and on p. 249 he identified it as being of the same species as the metatarsus, i.e. “The femur / 12 offers the required cor¬ respondence with the metatarsus m 3 of the Dinornis struthoides. It was no , ow- ever, a co-type of D. struthoides. 63 . •„ iRoi when Lvdekker (p. 224) selected the tibia (type The next relevant event was m > „en which is quite in order provided of D. ingens) as the type of D. the effect of flxing the type; this, it is suggested, Owen’s previous proposals had n elimination, as in the selection of the they may have had, on the principle ot t>pe oy type species of a genus, thus . ^ ^ noVae-zealandiae, Owen’s proposal of D. Accepting the three bones as ^yp^ ^ femur as remaining types. Again, the struthoides for the metatars ^ the femur alone as type of D. novae-zealandiae. proposal of D. tngens for the t plimination of D. novae-zealcmdiac is not affected by „ ,he status rf this » h“ the , am, iae -ill Owen’s later identification of svnonym and Lydekker’s selection of apply f *■» »"“■ “ Will h.“ been MM 0. the other the tibia of D. ingens as type i identifying the femur with his new struthoides , ‘.‘hat Lydekker's .else, leu o, the ‘ibThWe‘ded,r.f « this'questlon — to depend upon whether the proposal, in any one opinion being given, the alternative designations of these species will be. A. Smaller species .. D. novae-zealandiae Smaller species . . D . struthoides Syn D struthoides Larger species . . D. novae-zealandwe Larger species .. D. ingens Syn. D. ingens Tn the meantime I have adopted alternative A. 1843 July .. 1844 March • • 1844 June 5 • • 1845 • • 1846 December 28 1891 • • 1891 November 13 1891 November • • 1892 May . . • • 1897 June • • 1907 November 12 1927 • • • • 1930 • • • • • • 1933 • • Dinornis novae-zealandiae Owen, 1843. Dinornis novae-zealandiae Owen (part). Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1843, pt. 11, P. s- Type: ? Metatarsus m3 and/or femur fl2 from Poverty Bay, at that time in Museum of Royal College of Surgeons. Dinornis struthoides Owen, Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1844, pt. 11, no. 129, p. 144, nomen III id Mil* Dinornis struthoides: Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. 3, pt. 3, p. 244. Type. Metatarsu. , m3, of Owen 1843. Dinornis struthoides : Owen, Cat. Foss. Org. Remains (Mam. and Av.) Mus. y Coll. Surg., p. 369. Dinornis struthoides : Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. 3, pt. 4, p. 308, pi. 38, figs. Dinornis struthioides : Lydekker (part), Cat. Foss. Birds, Brit. Mus., 24^. Anomcilopteryx sp. a Lydekker, ibid., 256. Dinornis struthoides : Sharpe, Cat. Ost. Yertebr. M.us. Roy. Coll. Surg. III., P- Dinornis struthioides: Hutton, N.Z. Journ. Sci., new issue, 1, no. 6, 247. Dinornis struthioides : Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 24, 119. Dinornis struthioides : Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 29, 545. Dinornis gracilis: Rothschild (part), Extinct Birds, 194. Dinornis novae-zealandiae: Rothschild, ibid., 194. Dinornis novae-zealandiae : Archey, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 58, 155. Dinornis novae-zealandiae: Oliver (part), N.Z. Birds, p. 39. Dinornis dromioides: Oliver, ibid., P- 41 (bones from Karamu). Dinornis novae-zealandiae : Lambrecht (part), Handbuch der Palaeornithologie, 139 Dinornis dromioides: Lambrecht, ibid., 140. Leg-hones. While the femur of D. novae-zealandiae (PI. 1, fig. 1) is relatively stouter than that of Anomalopteryx, the tibia (PI. 2, fig. 1) and metatarsus (PI. 3, fig- 1) are definitely more slender, resembling in this respect the tibia and metatarsus of Megalap- teryx. The tibia is rather less incurved than in Amomalopteryx, but not as straight as in Megalapteryx. Sometimes the metatarsi are very slender, as in A.M. 328 from Wanganui, 64 a couple of odd bones apparently from a swamp. The muscle ridges on the femur are prominent, broad and rugose; particularly those for the accessory semi-tendinous and the posterior part of the adductor longus, which lie subparallel to each other instead of diverging as in Anomalopteryx. In the metatarsus the outer wall of the intercondylar groove extends backwards for a considerable distance beyond the inner wall, and is broad and rugose ; the posterior asperities in the metatarsus are also more marked than in Anomalopteryx and Megalapteryx. The stoutness of the femur and the length and slender¬ ness of tibia and metatarsus suggest a muscular development for strength and speed in D. novae-zealandiae as compared with lightness and speed in Megalapteryx; but neither would have been as fast as the existing struthious birds whose metatarsi far exceed those of the moa in relative slenderness and length. For dimensions of leg-bones see Table J. Skull. The skulls of the species of Dinornis are very similar in form, and a description of one (D. torosus in this case) will suffice for the genus. It is very broad and flat and has little height in proportion to length and breadth. Seen from behind, the outer borders of the paroccipital processes are strongly convex, and have a distinct marginal ridge which continues around the lower border, where it demarks a small truncated termination from the main process; this terminal process reaches only to the level of the lower third of the condyle. The mamillar tuberosities are of moderate size and are separated by a wide arch. The median supra-occipital crest is only faintly indicated, and the supra-occipital fossae are correspondingly shallow: each fossa is bounded ectally by a roughened sub-circular eminence for insertion of the rectus capitis muscle. The supra-foraminal ridge is not prominent; it is continued outwards and downward on the paroccipital processes. In lateral view (PI. 4, fig. 1) the hinder (paroccipital) and upper margins of the tympanic cavity form a wide arch which usually continues evenly on to the anterior margin ; the zygomatic process is short and broad. The post-temporal fossa is much larger than in the other genera, and the inferior temporal ridge, which forms its anterior margin, is prominent. The temporal fossa extends back¬ wards above the post-temporal fossa, the temporal ridge reaching back to within 5 mm. of the lambdoidal ridge and also extending well up on to the cranial roof. The maxillo- nasal springs from the nasal, and lies along, but is discrete from, the lachrymal ; the latter bone completely encloses the lachrymal foramen. On the dorsal surface (PI. 5, fig. 1) there is a slight depression between the temporal ridges, a low transverse eminence in the post-orbital region and a depression again in front of the eminence. The post-orbital processes extend widely outward, and their terminations bend down rather abruptly and slightly backward. The hinder margin of the orbit is sinuous, forming a wide angle where it meets the upper margin. In some skulls there are a few shallow pits, possibly for crest feathers, on the upper suiface above the orbit. The beak, in dorsal view, is very broad, tapering forward to a broadly rounded tip; the premaxillary ridge is narrow proximally and widens distally. In lateral view the beak is strongly depressed terminally. In ventral view (PI. 7, fig. 1, D. maximus) the skull of Dinornis is distinguished from the other genera by the wide lateral extension of the antorbitals. The maxillo-palatine junction is by a wide arch through which a broad flattened passage leads to a large antrum cavity. Vertebrae. I am not yet certain of the number of vertebrae in D. novae-zealandiae ■ nor of their grouping, for I have not been able to examine a complete skeleton. My Waikare- moana skeleton (A.M. 53) lacks 2 and, apparently 8, but would seem to have had the usual 21 cervical; it also needs two thoracic to make up the normal number, six, o these. The type of D. torosus lacks No. 1 and 2, and apparently 6 and 7, and if it does not also want No. 8, it possessed 20 (instead of 21) cervicals; it definitely has seven (instead of six) free dorsals, i.e. 28 is not fused to the pelvis. 65 tit oian Viaa «pven rib-bearing veitebiae, The Takaka D. torosus in the Dominion 1 to have more than 21 cervicals it is per- but as this skeleton appears from a Photogrp ^ ^ robustus in the Yorkshire haps safer not to base generalities on it. ® geven «dorsals,” but, as in the case Museum is another skeleton w' ’ PPcervbJls> s0 one cannot say whether the of the type of D. torosus, it lacks the modified cervical (21). On the other hand first dorsal in this case ^ ^ norma number (six) 0f thoracic and with no indi- I have a skeleton (A M. 123) with a complete vertebral column of cation that one may be missing. We have yet to this or any other species of Dinoi ms. usual subquadrate shape As to the form of the vertebrae, the nape cervi Qn tbe ventral side the as in e.g. Anomalopteryx, but have a sing e (no /' Alwmalopteryx. On the succeeding median hypapophysial keel is not so Pr0"°“n“ tand farther apart on the succeed- cervicals the neural spines become £ ^.^sSe on 20. The post^gapoph^ ing vertebrae, but become a single g Anomalopteryx, while the pleurapophyses appear on 8, and have joined to form a median STbyltl "lire vertKSo'nalJar, e.mpres.ed laterally, and bee.me n.rro. and slit-like in the posterior cervicals. . , r ipic o in 11 figs. 1) the pelvis is typical of the as in Anomalopteryx. In ventral view the broad centra of the anterior ptevjtop the pre-acetabular region a flat, splayed appearance, more 1 e my ' P -• j chia lopteryx; but the narrow post-acetabular region, and he moderately d ve^e t ” and nubes are suggestive of the latter genus. As in all species of Dmorms, the vertebrae of the acetabular region are clearly indicated by short, flat, acutely pomte paire pro jections, the transverse processes. The pelvic formulae indicate the customary variation in the grouping of the constituent vertebral elements: — 28-35 (36-39) 40-46 28-35 (36-38) 39-46 28-35 (36-39) 40-46 ?47 The “bracing” across to the hinder border of the acetabulum appears pretty con¬ stantly to be provided by pleurapophyses from 40 and 41, with No. 39 occasionally par¬ ticipating ; but No. 41 is not a constant element in this bracing and may be directed obliquely backwards to the side of the escutcheon. Sternum. (PI. 12, fig.. 2.) The broad, flat sternum has a straight anterior border which bears distinct and sometimes deep scapulo-coracoid facets (in only one Dinorms sternum were they absent). Just behind the anterior margin are two broad depressions, that on the left side being always the deeper, a feature apparently confined to Dinornis. The lateral processes are curved and widely diverging, extending well behind the median process ; the latter is deeply notched and is separated from the laterals by a wide arch, not an angular notch. Distribution. North Island: Doubtless Bay, Karamu (Kawhia district), Mangaotaki (Te Kuiti district), Waikaremoana, Haupouri, Poverty Bay (type locality). 66 Table 16. Skulls of Dinornis. 'SI/S/I -wo 00 cq eo CD 05 00 rH 00 rH rH CD 'Pf eo ID CQ CD o CO 13- 00 cnj t- io •uo^jaAiy cd eq uo 05 rH c- eo 05 H H eq o cd 00 CD o cq t-H rH rH co LO CO ID •sniM ©Jiqs^JOA o o O 5.2 9.6 L O CD o 7.14 5.1 t- eq’ eo 05 2.6 3.7 3.6 ID rH CO cd t- iej LO eo o CD* 1.05 o •oS^o ‘IIIH .wSiX C • wa Oi o oo oq eq eq ID 00 CO rH rH rH lf3 05 O t>- CD o cd o H 00 05 CD* o t- eq eo eo eq rH CD H 00 o •T35IB51BX rH rH rH L" LD CO CD cq ci ■228 I'V uo U5 05 eq eo t- in 05 eo co rt< OO eq ID o o no t- •edXj, t- ai rH 00 05 CD o eq eq CO no ICO ID O 00 o •'B5I132U2J, tH rH L— io eo CD cq io» ID 0.5 •^9 IT CO !>• rH o 5.1 o oo" 9.4 6.0 3.3 O rH 7.9 CD 00 eq oo 05 00 t- eq 05 05 cri CD 00 uo CO o t- eq’ eq CO CD o Q •'BUBOui0.re^i'BM rH CD P3 o s 00 Cv| 00 ID - •rH ft •rH o o o fH d ft c c 03 CP co o PS m 03 03 rt 03 -h o ps f-i ft o fH p-H ft oS •r-C 03 ft CO o . 03 03 bn r£S bD to PS 03 03 ffi O ft s CO 03 fH +J ft rt PS PS 03 03 fe ~ t -t-> +J 03 c3 cd P ^ rPS p^ p^ p^S H_> -U +-> -t-> <53 tS <53 o CO -t-J <53 CO d co o o 2 -H 3 g j fH c3 0 ft ft -t-5 3 S S S § S «W CM fH O ft o fH fH 03 -t-5 pPS H-> <03 bn PS 03 n3 co 03 U PS 03 PS • • rH S03 cO O co ?h co ft o l— H ^ o3 i co eS O fH 3 £ * 3 CT1 03 CO -*-1 +j -h c0 c3 .Pi S=5 H-> H-> rc3 £ EH £ £ TS1 »— h c3 •rH pQ fH O +J co o ft H-> c3 ,pS +H <03 •rH £ pQ 3 cO <0 PS o3 i— H o3 fH O ft 3 03 bn PS 03 PS 03 03 ~ £ • • -*-> 03 3s ^ bn 03 C3 PS d Q 03 ffi 67 doidal ridges (a) D. novae Table 17. Pelves of Dinornis. -zealandiae, (b) U. torosvs, (0 D. ingen, (d) D. robust. Length Width at antitrochanters Width of escutcheon Ischia length Ischia divergence . . Pubes length Pubes divergence . . % antitrochanters : length % escutcheon : length . . % ischial divergence : antitrochanters % pubic divergence : antitrochanters (a) A.M. 53. Waikare- moana. 34.2 17.6 12.5 21.5 24.0 26.5 26.0 51.5 36.5 136.5 148.0 (b) (c) (d) Type. South Hastings. Island. Takaka. 43.0 50.5 53.8 20.0 20.9 24.6 14.0 15.3 19.5 22.5 23.0 26.0 30.5 26.0 29.0 30.0 30.0 33.0 31.0 41.4 45.7 30.3 36.2 124.5 118.0 126.0 Dinornis ingens Owen, 1844. / r Owen (part) Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1843, pt. 11, p. 8. Tibia, Dinornis novae-zealandiae Owen (pa » t2, from Poverty Bay, type of D. mgens ^ 2. pL 26, figs. Dinornis that time In MuUum of Royal College of Surgeons. , /qkum • • nwpn Trans Zool. Soc. 4, pt. 2, p. 59, pi. 28 (skuul Dinornis mgens: Owen, ira . Founded on femur, selected by Lydekker (p. 248) as the TYPE. Dinornis gracilis: (2nd'ed. 1875, 25) (= D. non Palapteryx ingens. Haast, irais. Justus). robustns, Knobby Range). (part, 4>. cat. Foss. Birds, Brit. Mas. m " cat. Ost. Vertebr. Mus. Roy. CoU. Surg. London, III, p. 424 (no. 2167). 947 indicated Dinornis firmus Hutton, N.Z. Journ. Sci. new issue, vol. 1, No’ ’ ’ 1}> by average measurements, which, according to Hutton (1891b, 1 , • included those of an individual from Poverty Bay, then m possession W. Colenso. This is accordingly selected as the type. Dinornis ingens: Hutton, ibid., 247. Dinornis gracilis: Hutton, ibid., 247. Dinornis firmus: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 24, 114. Dinornis ingens: Hutton, ibid., 114. Dinornis gracilis: Hutton, ibid., H6. Dinornis ingens: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. vol. 29, 544. ...... non Anomalornis gracilis: Hutton (not of Owen), ibid., 546 ( par part M. didinus). Dinornis ingens: Rothschild (part), Extinct Biids, 192, pi. 4*j. Dinornis ingens: Archey, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 58, 155. Dinornis ingens: Oliver (part) N.Z. Birds, 39. Dinornis ingens: Lambrecht (part), Handbuch der Palaeornithologie, 138. This larger species is better represented in collections than D. novae-zealandiae. The type locality is Poverty Bay, and remains have also been found at Kaiwaka (Haw e s Bay), Waikaremoana, Makirikiri (near Wanganui), Mangaotaki (Te Kuiti distnc ), Hastings and Te Aute. 1843 July . . 1844 June 5 1852 1855 March 2 April 11 1856 1869 May 10 May . . 1875 1891 July . . April 25 1891 November 1891 November 1892 May . . 1897 June 1907 1927 1930 1933 November 12 August 15 . . 68 As with D. novac-zealandiae, the leg-bones vary considerably both in length and stout¬ ness (Table K), some having very slender tibia and metatarsus; there is, however, no break in the even gradation from stouter to very slender bones. Although we have secured several partial skeletons in our cave-hunting expeditions, only one has had a skull sufficiently well preserved for comparative measurements. The imperfect skulls, however, display all the typical characters of the genus, and are only slightly larger than the skull of D. novae-zealandiae. Table 18. Sterna: (a) D. novae-zealandiae, (b) D. torosus. (a) A.M. 53. Waikaremoana. (b) Type. Takaka. A — Breadth across pre-costal processes 15.5 18.5 B— Breadth at anterior end of costal border 13.5 17.0 C — Width at base of median processes D — Distance across outer ends of lateral processes 29.5 E — Length from anterior margin to tip of median process 13.8 19.5 F — Length from anterior margin to xiphisternal notch . . 10.0 12.0 G — Length from anterior margin to lateral notch 19.0 26.5 H — Length from preccstal to tip of lateral process 2.5 1.0 Dinornis giganteus Owen, 1844. 1844 March 1844 June 5 1869 May . . 1878 May . . 1891 • • • • 1891 November 1891 November 1892 May 1895 May 1897 June 1907 November 12 1930 August 1 . . 1933 . Dinornis giganteus Owen, Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1844, pt. 11, No. 129, p. 144 (t.l). TYPE: a tibia from Poverty Bay in Mus. of Roy. Coll, of Surgeons (No. 2170). Cast of type in British Museum (No. 18588, Lydekker, p. 225). Dinornis giganteus : Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. 3, pt. 3, p. 244, 241, pi. 27. non D. giganteus: Haast, Trans. N.Z. Inst. vol. 1, 88. Dinornis giganteus : Cheeseman (in Mactier, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 10, 552). Dinornis novae-zealandiae : Lydekker (part, presumed female foim) Cat. Foss. Birds, Brit. Mus. 224, 225. (Type of D. giganteus). Dinornis novac-zealandiae : Sharpe (part, i.e. no. 2170) Cat. Ost. Vertebr. Mus. Roy. C’oll. Surg. London, III p. 425. Dinornis excelsus Hutton, N.Z. Journ. Sci., new issue, vol. 1, no. 6, p. 247. Founded on average measurements, stated subsequently (Hutton 1892) to be of three metatarsi and a tibia from Te Aute of which the latter is here selected as the type. Its present place of deposition is not known. Dinornis giganteus: Hutton, ibid., 247. Dinornis excelsus: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 24, 110. Dinornis giganteus: Hutton, ibid., 112. Dinornis giganteus: Hector, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 27, 655. Dinornis giganteus : Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 29, 543. Dinornis giganteus: Rothschild (part) Extinct Biids, 193. Dinornis maxiinus : Rothschild (part) Extinct Biids, 192. Dinornis giganteus: Oliver, N.Z. Birds, 38. Dinornis giganteus: Lambrecht, Handbuch der Palaeornithologie, 137. The paper in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society for November, 1843, issued in March, 1844, contains a valid proposal of Dinornis giganteus , i.e. a name associated with a tibia of given length (two feet eleven inches) ; and this tibia being the only bone men¬ tioned, is the type. It is preserved in the collection of the Royal College of Surgeons (No. 2170) and there are casts of it in the British Museum (No. 18588 Lydekker, p. 225) . This species is known only from a few leg-bones (Table L) , among them only three sets or partial sets of bones of an individual bird, and bones from various swamp localities. There is no record of the skull of an individual bird ; presumably its skull was rather larger than that of D. ingens. 69 Distribution . North Island. The type locality is Poverty Bay. Other records are Doubtless Bay (North Auckland), Awhitu (Manukau Harbour), Moawhango, Te Aute, Makirikiri (near Wanganui), and Maungaraki Gorge (near Wellington). 1864 . 1869 May 1875 July 1891 . 1891 November . . 1892 May 1893 May 1895 October 1896 June 1907 November 12 1930 . 1933 . Dinornis torosus Hutton, 1891. Palapteryx ingens: Jaeger, Novara Exped. Geol. Bd. 1, Ab. 2, p. 307; skull probably of this species, though possibly of D. robustus. Dinornis sp. Haast, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 1, p. 84 (2nd ed. 1875, p. 25), No. 7. Dinornis gracilis: Haast, ibid., No. 10. Dinornis struthioides : Haast, ibid., No. 11. Dinornis struthioides : Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 7, Tables opposite p. ^78. Dinornis struthioides: Lydekker (part), Cat. Foss. Birds Biit. Mus. 242 (A. 105, p. 243, 32276, etc.). Dinornis robustus : Lydekker ibid., 239-240 (B.M. No. 46639-43). Dinornis torosus Hutton, N.Z. Journ. Sci. new issue 1, No. 6, 247. Indicated by average measurements, including (Hutton 1891b, 118, no. 1) those of a nearly perfect skeleton from Takaka then in possession of Mr. R. I. Kingsley, now in the Auckland Museum (A.M. 352), and here selected as the Type. Palapteryx plenus Hutton (part, i.e. tibia and metatarsus) ibid., 248. Founded on average measurements of bones from unspecified South Island localities. The largest tibia recorded in Hutton 1892b, 122, is here selected as the type. Dinornis torosus: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 24, 117. Palapteryx plenus: Hutton, ibid., 122. Dinornis strenuus Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 25, 8. Founded on leg-bones (unspeci¬ fied) of which average measurements were given. Lectotypc, here designated a metatarsus from Enfield labelled strenuus by Hutton, No. 1.14.13, Canterbury Museum. Dinornis torosus: Parker, Trans. Zool. Soc. 13, pt. 11, 375. Dinornis torosus: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 28, 634, 642. (Bones from Kapua.) Dinornis torosus: Hutton, ibid., 646, 648. (Bones from Enfield.) Dinornis gracilis: Rothschild (part), Extinct Birds, 194. Dinornis novae-sealandiae : Rothschild, ibid., 194. Dinornis novae-sealandiae: Oliver (part), N.Z. Birds, p. 39. Dinornis novae-sealandiae : Lambrecht (part), Handbuch der Palaeornithologie, 139. Hutton’s original designation of this species (1891b, 247) was supported by a com¬ parative statement, “Intermediate in size between D. gracilis and D. struthioides ” supple¬ mented by “average measurements” of leg-bones, pelvis, sternum and skull. His subse¬ quent (1892b, 118) more detailed description was based on only two specimens, No. 1, a nearly complete skeleton from Takaka, property of Mr. R. I. Kingsley, and No. 2, the tibia and femur of an individual from Glenmark in the Canterbury Museum. If the actual and ordinal priority of the details of the Takaka skeleton be not deemed sufficient to fix the type, its selection in this paper (see synonymy) will validate it as such. The type, which is well preserved, is now in the Auckland Museum (A.M. 852) : it has the typical South Island stuidiness of the leg-bones and widely spread metatarsal trochleae. Although its pelvis and sternum are both absolutely and proportionately (to tibia length) greater than in specimens of D. novae-sealandiae, its skull is very little larger. Distribution.' South Island: Nelson, Canterbury and Otago. Only six sets of the leg^ bones of individual biids are known, and the measurements of two of them are incom- ^ torosus was a*so scarce in swamp deposits such as Glenmark and n 6 * ^ may bave ranged the hills rather than the lowlands, or its relative lightness may, have better Preserved it from the swamp hazards which overtook the heavier species. 70 Dinornis robustus Owen, 1846. 1846 July . . 1846 December 28 1851 January 1 • . 1858 September 28 1864 September 3 1865 December 5 1865 • • • • • • 1865 . . . . 1866 June 6 • • 1869 • • 1869 May . . .. 1875 July . . 1891 • • • • • 1891 November . 1892 May 1895 October 1896 June 1907 November 12 1930 • • • • • • 1933 • • • • • • Dinornis ingens var. robustus Owen, Proc. Zool. Soc., pt. 14, p. 48. Founded on a femur and a metatarsus from the South Island, at that time in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons but not now identifiable there : the meta¬ tarsus is here nominated as the actual type. It was referred to as the type by Lydekker (1892, 230), but not so nominated. Dinornis ingens var. robustus: Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. 3, pt. 4, pp. 321, 329. Dinornis robustus: Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. 4, pt. 1, p. 2, pi. 1 (foot) (Waikouaiti) . non Dinornis robustus: Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. 4, pt. 5, p. 163; pi. 47 (as giganteus) (— maximus). Dinornis robustus: Allis, T., Proc. Linn. Soc. vol. 8, pp. xliv, 50, 52. Dinornis robustus: Allis, T., Proc. Linn. Soc. vol. 8, 140. Dinornis robustus : Dallas, W. S., Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1865, No. 1/, 265. ? Dinornis ingens: Stevens, S., Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1865, No. 40, 61/ (egg). Dinornis robustus: Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. 5, pt. 5, p. 337-358, pi. 53-56 (skull and scapulo-coracoid.) Dinornis robustus : Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. 6, pt. 8, 495-96, pi. 88. Dinornis robustus: Owen, ibid., 497. Invalid nomination of a type. Palaptcryx ingens: Haast, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 1, 84 (No. 8). Type of D. potcns Hutton, 1891. Dinornis robustus: Haast, ibid., 88, (No. 21). Dinornis ingens: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 7, 266. Dinornis robustus: Hutton, ibid., 279 (table of measurements, Hamilton Swamp). Dinornis robustus: Lydekker, Cat. Foss. Birds, Brit. Mus. 233 (bottom of page). non ? Dinornis robustus: Lydekker, ibid., PP- 239-240, (— torosus). Dinornis robustus: Hutton, N.Z. Journ. Sci., new issue, vol. 1, No. 6, 247. Dinornis potens Hutton, ibid., P- 247. Founded on leg-bones from Heathcote in Canterbury Museum (not identified 1939 G.A.). Dinornis robustus : Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., 24, 112. Dinornis potcns: Hutton, ibid., 115. Dinornis robustus: Parker, Trans. Zool. Soc. 13, pt. 11, p. 375. Dinornis robustus: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28, 633. (Bones from Kapua.) Dinornis robustus: Hutton, ibid., 645. (Bones from Enfield.) Dinornis ingens: Rothschild (part), Extinct Birds, 193. Dinornis ingens: Oliver (part), New Zealand Biids, 39. Dinornis ingens: Lambrecht (part), Handbuch der Palaeornithologie, 138. Dinornis robustus was founded on a femur and a metatarsus from the South Island (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1846, p. 48, Table of Admeasurements). In 1869 (Trans. Zool. Soc. 6, p. 497) Owen referred to a tibia as the “type of my Dinornis robustus:’ This tibia, how¬ ever, was not part of the original material on which the species was proposed ; it canno therefore be selected as the type, and as no bone has since been selected (though Lydekker referred to the metatarsus as the type) , I now designate the metatarsus as Icctotype. The present locale of the type specimen is unknown. D potens was stated by Hutton to be smaller than robustus, but in so describing it he was comparing it, not with Owen’s type, but with a larger bone which Owen afterwards referred to as robustus. Actually the metatarsus of potens is a little larger than the type of robustus. The type of potens is a set of leg-bones from Heathcote originally described (as Palapteryx ingens) by Haast in 1869. Of this species and its North Island size-fellow one can only repeat what was said in comparing torosus with novae-sealandiae ; that, while specimens .of the same size are found in both islands, the South Island form ranges to greater height (Table N) and has t tibia usually, and the metatarsus almost always, relatively stouter and with more ex¬ panded distal metatarsal trochleae. The best skeleton known of it is the T.gei Hill specimen in the Yorkshire Museum ; excellently preserved, though not quite complete, individual skeletons have already been recovered from the Pyramid Valley swamp The types of potcns, also an individual bird, cannot now be identified. D. robustus has been fou in the South Island from Nelson to Otago. 71 1846 December 28 1858 September 28 1867 1869 May 1869 June 1 1870 1879 1891 April 14 1891 November 13 1891 November . . 1892 May . . 1895 October 1896 June 1899 1907 November . . 1930 August 1933 . . Dinornis maximus Haast, 1869. ■ ■ , Owen Trans. Zool. Soc., 3. p. 320, Table opp. p. 328, pi. 45 (as Dinorms gigcinteus. Oven, S'mS)', , Owen Trans. Zool. Soc., 4, pt. 5, p. 163, pi. 47, figs. 2, 3 (labelled Dinornis robustus: Owen, nan&. gigcinteus). f 1867, No. 57> 891; nomcn nudum. Dinornis maximus Owen, Proc. ZooL Soc.^ ^ ^ ^ g? (2nd edn. m5> 28). Dinornis (maximus, Owen.) ’ ptatarsus of individual bird from Glenmark as — “““ ■“»* - “S; - ~ ” '“,1; JttU a.. ...... W Dinornis maximus “Metatarsus of an individual skeleton from Glenmark Swamp, Tthat ttae in the possession of Major J. Michael; casts in the British Museum (A. 161, Lydekker, p. 231) and Auckland Museum. See type D. maximus Haast /%™oc Zool Soc. lor i870, No. 4, 53-56. Dinorms maxnnus. Ha , o£ New Zealand> 361 (dimensions in table on 4. Type; left metatarsus from the South Island in the British Museum (No. 35832, Lydekker, p. 233). Dinornis maximus: Mus" Roy. Coll. Surg., London, III, 425. r So urn. Science (new issue), vol. 1, No. 6, 247. Dinornis ™t0a’ */” ^ Established on average measurements; type Dmln"gla d n sync U of D. uaiidus in next paper (Hutton 1892) U. mde "skeleton from Glenmark Swamp in Canterbury Museum (No. 20 of Haast, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 1, p. 88). Dinornis aitus: Hutton, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 24, 109. Dinornis maximus : Hutton, ibid., 109. Dinornis validus: Hutton, ibid., HI- 11 074 . . • Pnrkpr Trans Zool. Soc., vol. 13, pt. 11, oi ‘±. Dinornis maximus. ranter, na tw- • • TTnttnn Trans N.Z. Inst., vol. 28, 632. Raima. Dinornis maximus. Hutton, nai-b. Dinornis maximus: Hutton, ibid.. 646. Bones from Enfield. Dinornis maximus: Hutton, ibid.. 652. Skeleton from Riverton. Dinornis maximus: Andrews, Geol. Mag. (4), 6, 395. Dinornis maximus: Rothschild, Extinct Birds, 192. Dinornis aitus: Rothschild, ibid., 192. Dinornis giganteus: Rothschild (part), ibid., 193. Dinornis maximus: Oliver, New Zealand Biids, 38. „ Dinnrnix maximus: Lambrecht, Handbuch der Palaeormthologie, 137. Through delay in publishing a valid proposal of his Dinornis maximus , Owen forfeit1 to Haast the authority for this name. The original proposal, in Proceedings Zoologica Society 1867, was a nomem nudum, and Owen’s full description in Ti ansae ions o e logical Society (1869) appeared in the month following Haast’s notice of the bones o a leg under Owen’s name. Haast, apparently, had received word of the proposed name y letter from Owen. Curiously, both proposals were made on the basis of parts o e same individual bird, as explained by Haast in Proc. Zool. Soc. 1870, pp. 53-56. Haas s types are preserved in the Canterbury Museum. Owen’s types were at the time ot their description the property of Major J. Michael; according to Sir W. L. Buller (1888’ p’ xxiv) they were later in the Madras Government Museum, but I have been recen y advised that they are not represented there now. There are casts of them m e British Museum (A.161; Lydekker, 231) and the Auckland Museum (A.M. 385). Buller (loc. cit.) stated that Haast’s types were in his (Buller’s) own private collection, bu l is unlikely that he would have secured bones collected “on behalf of the Canterbury Museum” ; moreover, he describes them as “The corresponding right leg . . • wit ie phalanges complete,” whereas Haast records only a right femur, tibia and pait me a 72 tarsus which is what the Canterbury Museum now possesses. Their dimensions are slightly less than originally given by Haast and accord more with those recorded by Owen for his portion of the skeleton; this is no doubt due to shrinking, which certainly occurs, as I have ascertained by remeasuring the Pyramid Valley bones after a few months’ interval. D. maximus is well represented by individual skeletons, especially from North Canter¬ bury, which has yielded the type (Glenmark) and six skeletons recently from the Pyramid Valley swamp. The latter, though not complete, are in excellent condition; they present a wide variation, not only in size of the legs (Table 0), but in their propor¬ tion also, and in the form of the pelvis. The usual pelvic formula is: 28-35 (36-38) 39-46, with 39 to 41 sending their trans¬ verse processes to brace the hinder border of the acetabulum; in 39 the process is some¬ times short and fails to join up with 40 and 41. In C.M. xiii b the process of 39 was abbreviated on the left side and complete on the right. Distribution. D. maximus has been recorded only from Canterbury, Otago and South¬ land, but as the slightly smaller D. robustus is known from Nelson (A.M. 353) and Grey- mouth (Hutton, 1892, 113) it is not unlikely that D. maximus also ranged to the West Coast, unless the wetter climate of that area acted as a check to its distribution. The tall species of Dinornis have been credited with attaining a height of 12 feet or more; but the Riverton skeleton of D. maximus , as mounted in the British Museum (Andrews 1899), is only 8 feet 6 inches high, and on the same basis (height = 1.54 times total length of leg-bones), the tallest specimens would hardly have exceeded 10 feet, in normal walking height, though they may have been able to reach higher. EGGS. Moa egg-shell has been frequently collected, but complete or nearly perfect eggs are few. The shell is very thin in comparison with that of the ostrich or Aepyornis; it is formed of two layers, a thin inner series of vertical prismatic columns and a thicker outer layer of horizontal laminae (Hutton 1872a) . The surface is smooth, cream in colour and pitted with small round punctures or with larger slit-like pores. Pale green egg-shell has also been found (Hutton 1876, 101, and White 1886, 84). Prior to the discovery of complete eggs, Mantell had fitted fragments together and provided Owen with material for the description of the egg of " Dinornis crassus” (Extinct Birds 1879, p. 318, pi. CXV) . It is not at first sight clear as to where this restored egg was found. From the statement in “Extinct Birds” it might be understood that it had been put together by Owen himself from the Whingongoro (North Island) collection sent to England by Walter Mantell in 1848. In plate CXV, however, the restoration appears to consist of over 40 pieces, yet Mantell had collected no more than 36 (G. A. Mantell 1851, p. 121, p. 487, Appendix B) and these were referable to three different species. Even allowing for further breakages in the attempt to fit the pieces together, it is incredible that all the fragments found should fit together perfectly and without hiatus. Owen’s further remark (p. 318) should be noted: Such was the degiee of knowledge of the egg-characters of Dinornis to which I had got in 1856. This was a year aftei Walter Mantell visited England and unpacked his Awamoa (South Island) collection in Owen’s presence. Writing of this in Trans. N.Z. Inst. 5, 96, Mantell said: “The fragments of egg-shell .... after careful washing, I had sorted and having, with some patience, found the fragments which had originally been broken from each other and fitted together, I succeeded in restoring at least a dozen eggs to an extent sufficient to show their size and outline. Six or seven of the best of these I gave to the British Museum after their purchase of the collection . . . .” From the above it would appear that the 73 „ ,, Q^in4-v, T^land locality Awamoa; it agrees restored egg described by Owen was from are recorded in Table 19, but its in length with the other Otago eggs it is of a different species (cf. the differ- greater diameter does not necessarily m 10) From the Pyramid Valley ent diameters of the . it was found lying between the pelvis swamp comes an egg aenmieiy and sternum of a skeleton of that species. , „iwtinn of esrg-shell made by the Hon. W. I». u. manreii. The Auckland Museum has a collectio collection” in Mantell’s hand- Although it is label]led ‘‘Ru.am°^oa ’uection which he stated (Trans. N.Z. Inst. 5, 96) writing, it is clearly the wa mew^ere in England” after he had given certain to have been “still in my ownership so ^ the British Museum. The covering specimens, including the egg descnb ° of’the twenty-four varieties stated to have label includes a letter A B. U etc., x of actual shell. Many of the pieces are Sief "tiS to6 their hawing as ^ iSSTSS ,h lh . 1 o xnnmrh nieces only 1.1 cm. thick occur, with the air- L pores' appearing ^s coa/se slits sometimes so close together as to give a surface like nier-skin. Table 19. Dimensions of Moa Eggs. Awamoa, South Island. Ig52 — W. B. Mantell. British Museum. Owen, Extinct Birds, 318, pi. 115 Kaikoura, South Island. 1859— Fyffe. Rowley Coll. Rowley, Orn. Misc. 3, 244, Owen, Ext. Birds, 318, pi. 117 Cromwell, South Island. 1866 — Dominion Museum. Hector, P.Z.S. 1867, 991 Molyneaux River, South Island. 1901— Otago Museum. Benham, T.N.Z.I, 34, 149 Molyneaux River, South Island. 1901 — Tring Museum. Benham, T.N.Z.I., 34, 150 Miller’s Flat, South Island. 1911— Gibson. Otago Museum. Oliver, N.Z. Birds, 32 Wairau, Marlborough. 1939 _ j. Eyles. Dominion Museum. Pyramid Valley, South Island. 1939 — Canterbury Museum. Doubtless Bay, North Island. 1900— Matthews. Auckland Museum. Archey, Rec. Auck. Inst. Mus., 1, no. 2, 113 Doubtless Bay, North Island. 1900— Matthews. Auckland Museum. Archey, Rec. Auck. Inst. Mus., 1, no. 2, 113 Doubtless Bay, North Island. 1940 — Deeming. Auckland Museum. Condition. Dimensions. Species attributed to Imperfect 192 x 152 Emeus crassus (79)* Eu. gravis or P. elephant opus Perfect 253 X 178 (70.5) Dinornis robustus Broken 226 x 155 Emeus crassus or (69) Eu. gravipes or P. elephantopus Perfect 195 x 135 (69) >» Perfect 201 X 138 (69) Perfect 200 X 138 (89) 5* Broken 194 x 139 Restored 179 x 134 Emeus crassus Perfect 120 x 91 (76) Eu. curtus Imperfect 120 X 97 (80) Broken *Percentage : width to length. 74 2. Thinner, 1.0 to 1.3 cm., with fewer much finer slits so closed in as almost to dis¬ appear, with here and there a few larger circular pits. 3. Less than 1.0 cm. thick, with much finer, more sparsely scattered punctures. Occasionally types 1 and 2 have been put in a single box; there is no statement that they were supposed to comprise pieces from the same egg, but a few pieces fitted together by Mantell show fine markings in one place and coarse markings in another. There is no green egg-shell (Hutton 1892) ; all pieces are cream in colour, except where stained by fire and ashes. The two Doubtless Bay eggs were referred by the writer (1931) to Eu. curtus because their shell was of the thinner, more finely punctured variety of the two kinds found there. I am now able to support this identification through finding (Doubtless Bay 1940) two sets of shell fragments of this type definitely associated with skeletons of Eu. curtus. This type of shell may, however, be characteristic of P. oweni also. Another egg, wTiich when its fragments are fitted together may prove to be fairly complete, was found by Mr. A. B. Deeming near a skeleton of Eu. curtus (A.M. 365), though we could not be positive that it belonged to it. It is approximately 12.5 cm. long and has the thin, fine pitted shell of the earlier Doubtless Bay eggs. Attention is drawn to Hector’s correction (1872, 363) of his previous report (1867, 991-2) that the large Kaikoura egg had been found in a Maori burial place in the hands of a human skeleton: the discoverer of the egg, Fyffe, had advised that this was not the case, but that the egg was found in alluvial soil when digging a few feet below the surface. The Wairau egg, however, was found at the feet of a Maori skeleton together with a rei-puta tooth pendant and a “spool” necklace (Andersen 1940, 595) . The small hole in it is a man-made perforation ; drilled holes in moa egg-shell have also been found by Mr. David Teviotdale. SKIN AND FEATHERS. Descriptions of dried skin and feathers have been given by Dallas (1865), Hutton (1872; 1876, 101), Hector (1872b) and Owen (1879, 440). The material has usually come from caves, but well preserved feathers have been found fifty feet deep in river sand (Hutton 1872b, 172). The feathers are typical of the Order in their open struc¬ ture and lack of barbicels ; the aftershaft, when present, is about half the length of the shaft. Three colours have been noted : (a) rufous with a dark central area and a lighter tip; (b) brown at the base, becoming lighter distally, with a white tip; (c) i eddish- brown with dark brown medianly towards the apex (Hutton 1876, 101). The likelihood that certain species carried a crest of long feathers on the head has been infened from pits in the skull by T. J. Parker (1893c) ; it is noted that one sex only would have been so adorned, for other skulls of the species concerned (D. robustus, A. didiformis and “Mesopteryx sp. /3,” i.e. Pachyornis pygmaeus of this paper) are without it. Megalapteryx didinus had the metatarsus feathered right to the toe (Owen, 1883). The metatarsal skm of D. robustus, and pads under the toes, were described by Owen (1869a) and by Hutton and Coughtrey (1875) as being raised into rounded papillae, and a coarse roughening of the neck-skin with elevated conical papillae has been noted in “E. crassus” by Hector (1872a). A. Hamilton (1893b, 487) has recorded the finding of a small piece of skin, which he identified as moa-skin, on an old flax mat in Dr. Hocken’s collection ; according to Owen (1879, 448) Hector also identified moa feathers on a Maori fish hook of iron (!) and on a taialia in the Christy Collection ; but after close examination Owen could not distinguish these feathers from those of the kiwi. 75 TRACHEAL RINGS. , , , £ i- rmcff but the following details may be noted. In I have no complete sets of tracheal K - compressed in Anomalopteryx and Dinornis the upper rings are compresse e ip > ^ ^ ^ and flatter from side to side still less in Emeus^ The * body ^ c™s^g appr0aching the round in transverse section in Dmorn.s; less high, in transverse section but is higher in Anomalopteryx; in Emeus the body is stih v y ,g & loop _n ^ trachea, as ^ -d Me^x didims- CLASSIFICATION. Owen always regarded the moas as belonging to one he admitted two genera (i852), who ’ proposed a separate TZfstZ^Tcela, Emeus and Sycr^ in the Casuarin^ genus 101 eacn u Rhea m the Struthiomnae. In m “^ast ‘established^the1 families Dinormthidae and Palapterygidae but the distinction between them fails, as all moas are now known to possess a hind toe. Lydekker (1891a) reverted to one family with five genera, Dinornis, M^a/aW-, Avo'iialoOteryv Emeus and Pachyornis, a course independently followed by Hutton (1891b), Anonialoi 1 y, , «nh genus Tvlopteryx) , Palapteryx, Anoma- though with more genera, i.e. Dinornis (with suD-genus i \ioj wyij, t j lopieryx, Cela, Mesopteryx, Syornis and Euryapteryx. T J Parker (1893b, 1895b) proposed the recognition of three sub-families : Dinornithinae (Dinornis); Anomalopteryginae ( Pachyornis . Mesopteryx and Emeinae (Emeus), but the interpretation of skull characters on which his classifica¬ tion is based, besides being in itself inadequate, has been found to require modification Later classifications by Forbes (1900) and Rothschild (1907) both accepted the sing family, the former recognizing six genera and the latter seven. Oliver (1930)* introduced a surer basis for classification in his recognition of the paramount distinction between the tall, slender, flat-skulled Dinormthidae and the shorter, stouter, round-skulled Anomalopterygidae ; this arrangement has been followed here though with modifications as to the differentiating cranial and pelvic characters, and wit a different arrangement of genera in the Anomalopterygidae. DIAGNOSES. Order Dinornithiformes. Skull with broad occipital region, large temporal fossae, small orbits and large olfac¬ tory cavities; beak wide at the base, broadly rounded or narrow at the tip. Occipita condyle pedunculate, separated by a fossa from the well-defined basitemporal platform ; mamillar tuberosities usually prominent, basipterygoid processes well developed ; rostrum long, with triangular expansions anteriorly below which fit the maxillary antra, whic may be expanded or contracted. Large tympanic cavity overhung by a prominent squa¬ mosal prominence with zygomatic process acute or blunt. Postorbital and preorb ita processes prominent, the latter formed by the lachrymal notched below to form the inner moiety of the lachrymal foramen, whose outer wall is supplied by the maxillo-nasa . Vomers thin paired vertical plates which may meet anteriorly, divergent posteriorly where they fuse with the palatines below and the pterygoids above ; palatines thin vertical plates *Buick (1931) ancl Lambrecht (1933) each followed Oliver, the former adding D. roZmmw for the naive reason that the South Island species of this size ought to be distinct from that of the or 76 twisted mesad posteriorly to join the vomers and the pterygoids; the latter articulate also with the basipterygoid processes. Premaxilla strong, with elevated nasal process, and with separated processes posteriorly articulating with the maxilla and the palatine : in older, well-ossified specimens the palatine processes extend inward to fuse below the rostrum. Mandible strong, symphysis ridged below and deflected downward. Vertebrae : 21 cervical, the first six with expanded neural platform, 6 dorsal, 18 pelvic and 11 caudal; the grouping varies in the pelvic region. Sternum broad and flat, the body ossified from two centres; pre-costal processes short and broad, lateral (xiphoid) processes long and divergent, median process notched or entire, coracoid facets variable. P elvis broad, especially in acetabular and post-acetabular region, ischia and pubes laterally divergent and separate, though the ischium and pelvis of one side may be fused by bone growth in old specimens. Pectoral girdle when present reduced to small scapulo- coracoid ; it is questionable if wing-vestiges persisted. Limbs heavy : Femur only slightly curved anteriorly, the great trochanter rises above the head, distal end very wide with broad rotular surface and deep popliteal depression. Tibia with expanded cnemial process, and with a bony bridge completing a canal for the extensor tendon. Metatarsus exceptionally variable in length and relative width through¬ out the order ; interosseous canals opening separately on posterior surface and by a single opening in front. A sesamoid bone posteriorly between the tibia and metatarsus; hind toe apparently present in all genera. Feathers of open structure lacking barbicels; the aftershaft when present about half the length of the shaft. Family Dinornithidae. Tall moas with the femur less than, and the metatarsus more than, half the length of the tibia, and with the skull very wide and dorso-ventrally compressed ; beak very wide and much downcurved distally. Sternum with the left anterior depression more marked than the right ; coracoid facets usually distinctly marked. Scapulo-coracoid present. Nape vertebrae with neural spine single; cervicals with vertebraterial canals laterally com¬ pressed. Outer toe five-jointed. Genus Dinorms Owen. Characters as for the Family. Six species ; the South Island trio distinguished from that of the North Island by the greater relative breadth of the leg-bones, particularly the metatarsus, and by the attainment of greater average height. Three species in each island separated by differences in height. North Island. D. novae-zealandiae Owen. D. ingens Owen. D. giganteus Owen. South Island. D. t or o sits Hutton. D. robustns Owen. D. maximus Haast. Family Anomalopterygidae. Shorter and usually stouter moas with the femur more than, and the metatarsus less than, half the length of the tibia, and with the skull less broad and of greater height than in the Dinornithidae. Scapulo-coracoid much reduced or absent ; coracoid facet of sternum usually less distinctly marked than in Dinornithidae. Nape vertebrae with bifid neural spine; vertebraterial canals of cervicals not laterally compressed. Sub family Anomalopteryginae. Outer toe with five phalanges. Skull with pointed beak, maxillary antrum expanded. Sternum short and wide to very wide. 77 rAntorbiteals n" diverging widely; basipterygoid processes , _.j. _ q nH moderately wide. laro'e. Two species separated by size A. didifonnis (Owen). Larger, both islands. A. antiquits Hutton. Smaller, South Island. with >»•» to'^lambdoidal ^ Aiitorbitals „j£rsr • « - - - - Two species, separated by size M. didinus (Owen) . Smaller. Mainly South Island. M. benhami n. sp. Larger. South Island. r^prmct Pachvornis Lydekker. Skull with beak narrowing anteriorly to a sub-acute tip, its sides slightly convex, processes. Legs stout to very stout ; tibia strongly inflected at distal end. Four species, separated by size and relative stoutness— P. eleplmntopus (Owen). Largest and very stout. South Island. P. pygmaeus Hutton. Smaller, very stout. South Island P mappini n. sp. Still smaller, moderately stout. North Island. P oweni (Haast). Smallest, less stout. North Island. Sub family Emeinae. Outer toe with four phalanges. Skull with small temporal fossa ; beak narrow or broad with rounded tip ; maxillary antrum slightly reduced or completely collapsed. St narrow. Emeus Reichenbach. Skull with swollen supraf oraminal ridge ; beak narrow with rounded tip ; maxil¬ lary antrum slightly reduced. Legs moderately wide. Two species, separated by size — Em. crassus (Owen). Larger. Both islands; rare in the North. Em, huttonii (Owen). Smaller. South Island; doubtfully in the North. Euryapteryx Haast. Skull with supraf oraminal ridge not swollen; beak wide with broadly rounded tip; maxillary antrum collapsed. Legs wide to very wide. Four species, separated by size — Eu. gravis (Owen). Largest. Mainly South Island. Eu. geranoides (Owen). Smaller. North Island. Eu. exilis Hutton. Still smaller. North Island. Eu. curt us (Owen). Smallest. North Island. 78 DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES, While it is hoped that this study will have thrown some light on the relationships between the families and genera of moas, it is realized that it may still be questioned whether too many or too few species have been admitted, and that the size-limits on which they have been determined are somewhat arbitrary. I have, however, endeavoured to show why any particular course has been followed in the present arrangement. Fewer species are admitted here than have been previously recognized. It will be remembered, hdwever, that Hutton (1892b) and Rothschild (1907) both found, in the striking external differences between the uniform-sized species of Cassowary, warrant for the recognition of several species within the great range in size and proportions of moa bones. Species of moa marked by external characters may certainly have existed, but distinguishing characters have now to be found in the remains that are left to us, i.e. the skeleton, and it is submitted that both the even and continuous gradation in size and proportionate thickness in a series of any one bone remarked by earlier workers, and the promiscuous and haphazard association of large and small bones in individual skeletons from the same locality recorded in this paper, make it difficult to define limits between many of the species that have been proposed. It will be noted, moreover, that each locality group examined, no matter in what genus, displays the same extent of variation in length and proportion combined with diversity in the association of large and small bones in different individuals, and this, it is held, indicates in each case a group of birds of diverse size living and breeding together ; in other words, a natural species. Further¬ more, a big range in size is not abnormal in the struthious birds. Lydekker (1895, 558) mentions the male ostrich standing up to 4ft. lOins. at the back instead of the usual 3ft. 8ins., and the few dimensions I have been able to record in Table P show considerable variation in size and proportion of leg-bones in the emu as well as the ostrich. Nevertheless a score of species seems in itself a surprising number for one small area to maintain. The possibility that the considerable range in size in species of moa may include overlapping differences in size between the sexes has been discussed in connection with the leg-bones of A. didiformis (p. 19). It may be recalled that Hutton (1896c) noted the occurrence of egg shell with the smaller of the two Riverton skeletons of D. maxinw s, and observed that, as the remains appeared from their position to have been of drowned, rather than of sitting birds, the smaller egg-bearing one might be accepted as a female. The supposed smaller size of the female cannot, however, be inferred from the Pyramid Valley remains, for the egg-bearing skeleton of Emeus ciassus (xiii D) is the fourth largest of that species found in this locality. The development of so many species of large birds in a relatively small area is, as Hutton (1891b, 148) has expressed it, “a remarkable fact, unparalleled in any other part of the world.” Hutton, who recognized more genera than are admitted here,, sug¬ gested that they might have originated by isolation on separated land aieas duiing a Miocene depression ; specific differences, he thought, had arisen since the formation of Cook Strait, and most of the species must be due solely to variation without isolation.” The distribution of the genera represented in the present classification hardly indicates differentiation on isolated subdivisions of a depressed area, for, with the exception of Emeus they are pretty evenly distributed throughout the whole country. The rare occur¬ rence of Emeus in the North Island is curious in that, as interpreted here, it would have been ancestral to Euryapteryx, which has a nearly even two-island distribution. With regard to species-differentiation, it seems clear that the North and South Islands have been two distinct, if not separated areas; witness the small but readily per¬ ceptible differences between North and South Island species of Dinmms, an e we defined North and South Island groups of species of P achy onus and Euryapteryx. Cooc Strait had been the barrier separating the incipient species it would have contained all the 79 have had approximately equal northern and species equally, and each genus you 1 1 g are not equal. Excluding A. anhqnus southern species or species-groups. B * with Dominion-wide distribution, of an earlier geological period, we tad A ^ J Mgg_ didinus> a mainly western and, apparently, not divided into mte * ' t,and and west Nelson), extended to the south- South Island species (Wakatipu W ^ common on the eastern lowlands western side of the North ; on the oth h ^ of the North. Apparently the barrier of the South Island, reached the so indiscriminate as a water barrier should between the islands was neither comp having been formed, according to be for a flightless bird; it is not even an old barner ha » time8. TCino- (1939) by lateral displacement as recently as lace , . , fpature 0f much longer standing in this region is the mam A dominant topographical feat w isthmus connecting the two islands ; this, mountain divide Which ran throug vious selective barrier to moa distnbu- it is suggested, could have provided a the tall, active species of tion. Thus it would have been more read* to have favoured hilly Dinornis, and by Anomalopteryx, w 1C : s would have been less frequented by the country ; on the other hand the mountain isthmus you^ ^ ^ explain the more heavier forms, Emeus, Pachyorms an my ; - ’ ^ p regard to the direction of species-evolution, has instanced it as an example ol genesis, i.e. “the multiplication of species ... not so much due to chance variations . . . fixed by natural selection as of a quality innate in the stock which causes the organisms to continue development along certain lines” (p. 29) . I should be satisfied with the term orthogenesis as a purely descriptive one, provided the suggestion of an innate quality or automatic runaway process is eliminated from 1 . Evidence for the theory of orthogenesis is usually found in the progressive specializa¬ tions found in fossil sequences, e.g. Tithanotheres and sabre-toothed tigers (Wells, Hux ey and Wells, p. 482, 485), creatures whose living conditions are known only inferentia } and by no means in detail. On the other hand, we have little difficulty in relating t c structural specializations of Recent animals to particular environmental conditions, as, for instance, the great size of pachydermatous mammals to the fat pastures which they range. In these cases, it may not unreasonably be supposed that the attainment of a certain size had conferred some degree of immunity from attack by carnivores, and that elimination, or limitation, of this controlling factor had left the creatures free to attain whatever size the abundance of food made possible. The moa also enjoyed a plenitude of food and, through isolation, immunity from attack, and it is in these environmental conditions rather than in supposed innate orthogenetic forces that we may find the likely cause of their attainment of inordinate bulk. Oliver does consider environmental factors 80 (p. 30), suggesting that isolation in different environmental regions had been a con¬ dition of differentiation of species. I would again agree that differentiation may be related to the geographical regions, upland, lowland and coastal, but am unable to see, in the ill-distinguished species of moa, the effect of isolation. If there is one thing clear about the moa it is that the limits between species are not clear, and this to the writer suggests varied environmental conditions without complete isolation. It may be questioned whether climate was a direct differentiating factor, though no doubt it operated indirectly. If it had operated directly, a larger moa population might have been expected in the warmer North, whereas it is the colder South Island that seems to have supported the greater numbers. Relative humidity might have been a direct influence : the eastern side of the South Island, where apparently the moa was most numerous, is the driest part of New Zealand, and in this connection it will be remembered that the struthious birds elsewhere favour arid, or at least dry, conditions. Climate and topography together, however, have produced marked differences in plant covering in different areas of New Zealand, and the dense forests of the North Island stood in marked contrast to the extensive open grasslands of the South. It was in the latter that the moa abounded, particularly the massive forms whose ungainly bulk would probably have caused them to favour the lowlands, leaving the higher tussock and scrub country to the more slender species, e.g. of Anomalopteryx and Megalapteryx, and probably of the tall Dinornis also, despite the latter’s frequent occurrence in swamp deposits. The marked variation in the stoutness of the limbs, together with the progressive shortening of the metatarsus in the heavy species, is obviously connected with locomotion, and seems inevitably to be related to ponderous progression along the lowlands rather than to active roving over the hills. And might v/e not here find a possible explanation of the large temporal fossa and mandible in Anomalopteryx and Dinornis, much larger than in the species of Emeus and Euryapteryx, which would have found softer pasture in the lowland swamps? A further possibility is that the collapsed maxillary antrum cavity in Euryapteryx is the outcome of a swamp habitat; but its expanded condition in Pachyorms elephantopus, and its reduction in the plains-dwelling Rhea (T. J. Parker, 1895b, 403), stand against this explanation. In Africa, Australia and South America, the struthious birds were, and still are, in competition with predatory mammals, and were thereby restricted to one type of habitat and to one line of bodily development, which included the retention of a measure of speed. In New Zealand the moa suffered no such restriction, and was therefore able to exploit a wider range of habitat and correspondingly to develop a greater variety of physical forms. PHYLOGENY OF THE DINORNITHIFORMES. Turning from developmental trends within the Dinornithiformes to the phylogeny of the order as a whole, we encounter a group of problems inherent in the evolution of birds and reptiles and the origin of flight, subjects which, in recent years, have engaged the attention of several writers. Four inter-related problems present themselves: 1. Are the moas, kiwis, ostriches, rheas, emus and cassowaries of monophyletic origin, or has each group evolved independently by degeneration from flying birds ? 2. Are they really degenerate fliers, or have they never attained flight at all ? 3. How, in this connection, did flight arise : was it from an arboreal, air-planing pro- avian reptile, or from a swift cursorial form with an “air-rowing” fore-limb? 81 f reptilian order are we to look for the 4. Following this, to the ancestors of winch reptu fore-runners of birds? ^ (lg26) agree in finding the closest P R. Lowe (1928a, 1935, etc.) and G- dinosaurs particulary the Coelurosaurs ; Ancestors of birds ami Coelurosaurs in the Pseudo- suchia or further back m the ®°8“^ d the view that birds had evolved from Nopcsa in 1907, and again m 1923 P“ during running, oared along in the air by “bipedal, long-tailed cursorial rept H’ ointed out that planing fliers utilise a flapping their free anterior f^re™*ieSf and hind iimbs, a condition incompatible with patagium which must extend e Dinosaurs, which he regarded as the ancestors the bipedalism of birds; he noted 1 submitted that the free dorsal ver- of birds, were primarily and S° dyt^ Pfused metatarsals of the Dinosaurs, Archaeopteryx tebrae, the long narrow pelvis, and characters, but also those associated with and struthious birds are not on y prim flieht Heilmann (1926) considers that the the swift cursorial habit tha^ L sees in ArcHaeopteryx proavian was an arboreal air-Plan g evidenCe 0f a cursorial habit: instead he regards the many proto-avian features, but prehensile pollex and, in the foot, the long structure of its fore-limb, especially he free Pensile p^^ ^ Beebe>s (1915) opposable hallux, as proof o. ar partly because he cannot discern the pelvic wings s investigated of certain species, and partly because ofthelufsorill' habit' givCrise to flight in other vertebrate groups, there are examples of both planing and true flight in arboreal reptiles and mammals. , . , j / 1 noon 1QS5) is the relationships and phylogeny of the slock. H, ,1«. considers tt.l Penguin. ,re another early mdepe.d- ent pre-volant specialization, this time for an aquatic life. Lowe adduces evidence from many aspects of bird structure and hablt ,S“ of his conclusions, and includes, as relevant to the question of the primary fl'Jtlessness of the Struthiones, a discussion of characters held to indicate the primi iven phyletic unity of the group. He cites as primitive characters the delayed UMO"of cranial sutures, the palaeognathous palate, the large basipterygoid processes the form of the quadrate and the non-development of a pygostyle; and he presents, as charact found only in the Struthiones and indicating their common relationship, the intestma caeca opening together into the rectum*, the lack of a tufted oil-gland, th® Per °ra the accessory femoro-caudal muscle by the sciatic nerve (Garrod, 1873, 6* ), e n ^ . habits and the habits of forward kicking and of falling forward on the breast, pro uc thereby a sternal callosity. It is, however, in the distribution and structure of the feathers and the condition of the pectoral girdle and wing that Lowe finds chief support for the view that t e ♦Owen (1879) describes them as opening separately in Apteryx; this condition also obtained specimen which Mr. E. G. Turbott kindly examined for me recently. 82 Vi Qciq for the first metacarpal was free in only two out of this, we submit, is a wrong emphasis, 1 ls n and m were fused in them all: seven specimens iUustrated by Parker and induding Apteryx> have the metacarpals the important thing is that all the bti essary keying-up (to use Lowe s normally fused, which would seem to ' simple air.rowmg.* A further point, this term) or integration of the manus ded by Lowe as derived from pre-volant time in connection with the penguins, a » but in no other vertebrate pro-aves: the flipper bones in penguins are fused as in a ^ the 01lly reason for zzzzsz i- it .*££? ss— - *• - - * ~- Lowe ,«™, .... ... ently for cursorial requirements ! primitive flying Archaeopteryx shortened at all in cursorial pre-volants when even ^ the p and Frilled had a long tail, and when, judging from the ^ curso^ial bipedalism. In Lizards, an exceptionally long tail seem i &g -n other ratites, and Gregory’s m i» .... ..... » w** derived seems amply warranted. I am unable, however, to follow Dr. Gre^ ^“g^^us^he dteJ thereon only our derivation of the ........... .. . . c„,“ bird,, and make, a. .< f nr.. >o7..p”r3 s“:.d.es .. ... *»«« .«*».. rr *, Err r ss -- = thora to the Moimtkon. condition (by the dition obtains more or less perfectly for a short time in the life-history of many, i no all, Carinatae.” I have wondered whether the point is of prime importance here, unless one were concerned to deny the phyletic unity of the Struthiones, for it . is conceivab.e t a ratites might still be primitive in many respects although derived from an eai y < stock. Gregory does not discuss Lowe’s evidence for the phyletic unity of the btiutm- ones, an aspect which seems to be of some importance as implying an early divergence of the group as a whole from proto-carinate ancestors. In a discussion following Dr. Gregory’s paper, Dr. Robert Cushman Murphy contests the conclusions drawn by Lowe from details of feather-structure in the ratites. He cites the mutant poultry strain known as “silky-fowl,” in which the feathers show sinii ai peculiarities to those of ostrich-like birds,” as indicating that the struthious feather may be a simplified form of the normal carinate hook-barbed feather. He also refers to the inference by Davenport (1906) that all struthious feathers are. mutants of ordinary feathers. One imagines that Lowe’s reply would be that they might just as reasona y be regarded as a mutant reversion to a primitive condition ; but he makes no reference to Gregory and Murphy’s paper in the restatement of his views in the Ibis for 1935. ♦Heilmann (p. 29) draws attention to the partial interlocking of metacarpals II and III in Archaeornis and Nopcsa (1907, 235) regards fusion of the carpal elements as a requisite for flight. ♦Pycraft’s papers are, however, included in the list of “Literature Cited.” 84 Struthiones have never attained the power of flight. As to the feathers, he holds that, in their more uniform distribution with small embryonic apteria, and in their individual structure, i.e. their lack of interlocking hamuli or barbicels, their entirely non-pennal nature, the corresponding absence of the teleoptylic phase of carinate birds and the well- developed aftershafts, we see, not the results of degeneration, but, instead, a primitive pre-volant condition such as is found in the chicks or juveniles of carinates. In like manner Lowe interprets the shoulder-girdle and fore-limb of the struthious birds as primitive. He agrees that wing-degeneration and even loss (Dinornis, etc.) have occurred, but not necessarily from a volant ancestor ; he instances the reduced and com¬ pacted fore-limb of the coelurosaurs Strutkiomimus and Ornitholestes as indicating the type of “air-rowing” fore-limbs that might be expected to develop among primitive birds in association with swift cursorial progress; he points to the similarity of the broad cora¬ coid and the very wide scapulo-coracoid angle in bipedal dinosaurs and struthious birds ; he also quotes the instance recorded by T. J. Parker (1892) of a free first metacarpal in an Apteryx wing, interpreting this as being homologous with the free metacarpals of the cursorial Coelurosaurs; finally he draws attention to the early appearance (Eocene) and wide distribution of ostriches as further evidence for the primary and primitive status of the struthionids. Lowe’s conclusions have been contested by Gregory and Murphy (1934) who accept as essentially right the older view that “the ratite birds are the, in some respects degenerate, in others specialized, descendants of proto-carinate ancestors.” Gregory and Murphy have met most of the points raised by Lowe, but not all ; hence the following comments which it is hoped will not further confuse an already intricate issue. With regard to Lowe’s belief that the early (Eocene) appearance of Struthionids dis¬ counts the likelihood of their being derived from carinates, Gregory cites Hesperornis, of undoubted carinate ancestry, which nevertheless had already in the Cretaceous lost the sternal keel and all of the wing except a long, fragile, functionless humerus. Lowe con¬ siders that the undivided condition of the coraco-scapular bar in the developing ostrich embryo typifies a primary reptilian-derived condition, homologous to that found in such primitive reptiles as Euparkia and Ornithosuchus, and includes in this morphological com¬ parison “not only the Ostrich but . . . the rest of the Palaeognathae, not to mention such primitive avian and flightless types as Diatryma in which we get a similar fusion of these two bones.” He refers to W. K. Parker’s studies (1868) which show the bar undivided in the embryo ratites, but divided in the embryonic carinates, but Gregory regards this difference as a normal embryonic foreshadowing of the adult condition and of no special phylogenetic significance. As to Diatryma, Matthew and Granger (1917, p. 319) classified it as euornithic and related to the modern Cariama of South America, and Gregory draws attention to the import of this struthionic shoulder girdle with a wide scapulo- coracoid angle in a carinate-derived flightless bird. Gregory also challenges Lowe’s claim that the Struthionids never had a sternal keel and that the pectoral girdle is primitive by referring to Heilmann’s (1926) identifica¬ tion of the sternal crest with the primitive reptilian episternum or interclavicle which the Struthionids have certainly lost; he asks how the embryonic ostrich pectoral girdle can be regarded as primitive in the complete absence of paired clavicles and an inter¬ clavicle ? Turning to the wing, Gregory contrasts the complete fusion of the metacarpals in the ostrich and other ratites with the quite distinct fingers in the bipedal Coelurosaurs with which Lowe seeks to establish relationship. Here we may recall Lowe’s citation, men¬ tioned above, of the record by Parker of an occasional free first metacarpal in Apteryx; 83 It should not be forgotten that it is just as much an inference to say that struthious feathers are degenerate as to say they are primitive : moreover the evidence on this point is by no means unequivocal. On the one hand we have the points raised by Murphy and on the other the evidence adduced by Lowe, but not discussed by Murphy, from Chandler (1906)* and Ewart (1921), that the double-shafted condition of the struthious feather is primitive and is to be seen also in the neossoptile phase of flying birds whose adult feather is a specialization of one of the two primary shafts. Lowe urges, there¬ fore, that, if the struthious feather had reverted, by degeneration, to a primitive bipar¬ tite condition, there should be some “vestigial” evidence of this degeneration. The problem involves not only the general question as to how much can be lost with¬ out trace in degenerative evolution, but the more particular one as to whether feather- degeneration from the carinate towards the struthious condition can, or does, occur in association with the loss of flight. Lowe himself has presented some evidence on this point, but his interpretation of it as supporting his own view is difficult to accept. The Inaccessible Island flightless Rail Atlantisia rogersi exhibits a less highly developed condition of barbule hooldets than an ordinary Rail, e.g. Rallns. “What we actually find in fact is a phase of evolutionary development more or less half way between the down barbule and the volant barbule” (Lowe 1928b, 107). Lowe suggests that this condition may be, not secondary due to degeneration accompanying loss of flight, but primary ; i.e. that Atlantisia had never acquired the power of flight, and that Ocydromus (i.e. Gallirallus) , Aptornis and Dlaphorapteryx might be, or have been, in similar case! Lowe promises some “evidence derived from the ontogeny of the wing which seems to point to the conclusion that the rails, as a group, may in the past have been slow to acquire the power of full flight, or even of flight in moderate perfection, while some like the fossil forms mentioned may never have acquired it at all.” In the meantime, however, we may remember that Atlantisia and Gallirallus, Aptornis and Diaphorapteryx, have typical, though reduced, volant wing-structure, a distinct sternal keel, and, in the living forms, development in no incon¬ siderable degree of feather hooklets. The difficulty in understanding the supposed partial and non-functional acquisition of these features in members of a typically volant order reverts our attention to the older explanation of degeneration and to the possibility, even the likelihood or inevitability, of partial or complete loss of structures associated with varying degrees of disuse. In brief we find in the struthious birds the palaeognathous palate with other skull- characters and the double-shafted feather signifying a primitive status ; we also observe certain characters (lack of tufted oil-gland, relations of sciatic nerve to accessory femoro- caudal muscles) and habits (nesting, forward-kicking and breast crouching) possessed by all genera and indicating their phyletic relationship. While we can accept these charac¬ ters as signifying a related group of primitive birds, only one of them, the double-shafted feather, suggests directly, though not inevitably, that the group is primarily flightless. On the other hand we cannot overlook the fused fore-limb digits: they comprise a ves¬ tigial character which, notwithstanding Lowe’s advocacy of the relationship of the struthionid to the coelurosaurian fore-limb, is, in the present writer’s opinion, explicable only as indicating a former volant function. It is considered, therefore, that the available evidence indicates : — (a) That the struthious birds are a related group, related that is through their possession of a primitive palaeognathous palate and certain other characters and habits not necessarily primitive, and (b) that they are descended from a proto-carinate stock that had gained a measure of flight (cf. Pycraft 1900, 260) . *1 have not had access to Chandler’s paper, nor to Davenport’s. 85 It is still not certain, however, whether * * J £ we n0w know them, or whether each and had, as flightless birds, become te area of distribution. Nor can it be had independently become flightless in its P nQW tQ be considered, as to how and StrTJSffl in general/attained their present distribution. » mciTRTEIJTION OF PALAEOGNATHAE. ADVENT OF THE MOA; DISTK1HU nui> , . 1 •„ q1 ypaume of all the discussions on this subject; It is not proposed to present a histo important review (1892b) and to refer it will suffice to recall the conclusions in Hutton s impoi other nailers as occasion arises. pumice showers, and certain areas in southern Hawke’s Bay (letter from Mr. Norman H. Taylor) . The moa does not seem to have re-occupied the central plateau; at least no surface remains have been found there, and it probably existed in numbers only along the coastal areas. It is probable, therefore, that humidity and the accompanying growth of dense forest reduced the moa population in the North Island, or at least restricted its inciease and extension there. But however adversely these conditions may have affected the moa they by no means exterminated it, for we have undoubted evidence of its survival up to the time of human occupation. The question that remains is : how long did it survive the arrival of man ; was it still here when the Maoris of the traditional fleet migration of about 1350 A.D. reached these shores; did it survive within the personal experience of their descendants whom Captain Cook found here in 1769, or even of the first Europeans ? The evidence on the question is for the most part ethnological rather than zoological and geological, being derived from the traditional lore of the Maori and from seveial undoubted occurrences of moa remains in Maori ovens in a manner indicating that the moa was hunted and eaten by man. Archaeological Evidence. Direct evidence from excavations was first given by the Rev. R. Taylor (1846; Wai- ngongoro), by W. B. Mantell (Waingongoro ; see G. A. Mantell, 1848a, and b; and Awamoa, W. B. Mantell 1848), and by Cormack (Opito Bay; see Owen 1856a), but no estimate was made as to the antiquity of the deposits, though Mantell subsequently (1869) gave his opinion that extermination of the moa must have taken place within a very short period after the appearance of man. Haast (1870, and in greater detail 1872a), from a study of camp-sites at the mouth of the River Rakaia, placed extermination centuries ago by a pre-Maori race using primi¬ tive tools of flaked stone; later investigations at Moa-bone Point Cave (1875a) showed him that the moa-hunters possessed polished implements, but his first conclusion that their deposits were very old was strengthened by the occurrence here of a thick sterile layer capped by a purely shell-fish midden lying above them. In the same year Haast (1875c) described the Shag Point deposits in North Otago, and again distinguished an upper shellfish midden from a lower moa-hunter deposit the antiquity of which was indi¬ cated by a subsidence of the whole area by at least three feet since it was laid down. Hutton (1876b) found no evidence of this subsidence at Shag Point, but Haast (1877) reaffirmed it, giving more details of the levels concerned. Recently Skinner (1924b) con¬ firmed the subsidence noted by Haast, but Teviotdale (1932) reverted to Hutton's view, though he ascribes considerable antiquity to the site. Meanwhile inland moa-hunter remains in Otago had been described by Hector (1872a) and by Murison (1872), the former in a rock shelter, and the latter in ovens along the bank of the Puketoitoi creek; flaked chert tools were found in both places, with polished implements as well at Puketoitoi. Hamilton (1895b) also reported an inland moa-hunter shelter on the Old Man Range. In 1873 W. B. Mantell again described the deposits at Waingongoro and Awamoa, but stated that he had no fixed theory as to whether they were ancient or recent ; in the same year the Rev. R. Taylor (1873) also recalled his earlier discoveries (1846) and mentions 92 that, on a second visit with Sir George Grey in 1866, he was surprised to find many more skeletons uncovered by the winds, which had also laid bare a lower stratum of sand. Caution must be used, however, in drawing conclusions from beach deposits, for not all occurrences of human remains and those of the moa on the same sand dunes are evidence of contemporaneity. A. McKay (1879b, 134) clearly distinguished on Mira¬ mar Peninsula a lower stratum of consolidated sand containing moa bones and egg-shell from an upper wind-deposited layer supporting Maori middens, and H. Hill (1914, 343) records a like distinction between moa deposits and human remains on the East Coast, North Island, where, he says, there is no evidence of the use of the moa for food. Recent observations at Doubtless Bay also indicate that the presence of moa remains among oven stones and midden shells is not necessarily proof that the Maori cooked and ate the moa. On these sand-hills, which Mr. Pycroft and I examined recently, moa-bones and egg¬ shell were seen everywhere among scattered midden material and hangi stones; close inves¬ tigation, hdwever, showed the association to be secondary. On their eastern side the sand¬ hills are for the most part intact and capped by an undisturbed layer of close-packed midden-shell, but their shoreward sides have been eroded by the present prevailing westerly wind to a steeper slope now covered by scattered shells and oven- stones which have clearly fallen from the midden above. Moa remains lie among these scattered shells, sometimes quite high up, but they are never found in the undisturbed midden. They occur as individual skeletons, and they lie in, not on, the underlying slope, which is of a darker coloured, more consolidated sand than the upper midden-crowned layer; this lower layer also contains the fossil shell Succinea archeyi (Powell 1933), and, at one spot, we found a rather badly preserved skull of the extinct crow, Palaeocorax mono-rum. In extensive depressions in the sandhills vast quantities of moa egg-shell lie scattered among the midden shell, but while the midden material is most abundant at the top of the slope and diminishes downhill, the egg-shell is concen¬ trated below and peters out up-slope three feet below the midden cap. The area appears formerly to have been a lagoon or estuary, separated from the sea by what we may call the older dunes. The moas frequented the shores of this lagoon, nested perhaps, and died there, though some very low-lying remains may have been washed into the estuary from upstream. There is no evidence, however, that the birds were ever disturbed by man. In time a seaward line of sandhills was built up outside the old dunes, ulti¬ mately covering them, and on these new sandhills the Maori had cast his midden waste. No moa remains are found on or in these outer sandhills, and those Mr. Pycroft and I collected had, according to Mr. E. T. Frost, of Te Hapua, weathered out of the underlying stratum since he had last visited the site and collected all the then visible bones four years previously. Thus wind-erosion has resulted in the midden material being scattered down the new slope, forming a secondary or false association with the much older moa remains from time to time exposed. The discovery of moa remains and Maori tools on the Pataua dunes near Whangarei by Thorne (1876) was the first indication of the moa having lived in the North Auckland peninsula. Thorne was of the opinion that the moas had been the victims of Maori aggression, but his description of the site reveals conditions similar to those just described from Doubtless Bay, i.e. the occurrence of the moa-bones in a “hardened brown sand” disclosed by the blowing away of the upper layer in which Maori remains had been interred. Oven-stones and tools were lying on the consolidated surface, but the moa-bones were embedded in it. A similar relation between old and new dunes occurs at Kawau Bay, Coromandel Peninsula, where we collected a skeleton from the underlying compacted sand in 1930. 93 This distinction between older moa remains and much later midden deposits m North Auckland introduces a certain measure of doubt as to the Waingongoro deposits in South Taranaki, especially as described m Taylor s second pap (1873), in which he records his surprise, on revisiting the site with Sir George Grey in 1866, at finding as many bones on the dunes as when he a co - lected there in 1843. His account of this latter expedition, i.e. that ... a worked in good earnest, and no one more heartily than the Governor, it was quite amusing to see His Excellency grubbing up the old ashes and carefully selecti g what he thought worth carrying away,” may perhaps suggest enthusiastic hasie m co - lecting rather than careful observation. In this connection there is a marginal note i in W B D Mantell’s handwriting in the Wellington Philosophical Society s copy o e Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, vol. 4, against the account of his observa¬ tions given by his father (G. A. Mantell, 1848c, p. 229). He notes in reference to Rev R Taylor’s finding of bones indiscriminately thrown together as if from a feast totally unproved,” and that, north of Wanganui, he himself had found a skeleton with the bones in their natural position and that ‘‘the bird had evidently died there and decayed undis¬ turbed.” On the other hand he notes “right” against his father’s report of his having found “Moa’s, dog’s and human bones promiscuously intermingled” (G. A. Mantell 18 c, 234), a condition affirmed again in his own account of the Waingongoro excavations ( . B. Mantell 1873), wherein he expressed his conviction that the moa had been killed, cooke and eaten there. A. McKay, too (1879a) concluded, though on not very satisfactory grounds, that bones found at Taradale were the remains of food. In the South Island clearer proof of the contemporary existence of man and the moa was obtained from Monck’s Cave, near Sumner (Meeson 1890; Forbes 1891b) ; but the cave had been sealed for many years, possibly centuries, so its date is uncertain. Forbes conclusion that the moa-hunter culture of the cave was Maori, and not of another race, was upheld by Skinner (1924a), who found the same for the Moa-bone Point cave deposits (1923), where, however, according to Haast (1875a) and McKay (1875), a considerable time had elapsed between the early moa-hunting Maoris and the later shellfish eaters. The considerable age of the South Island moa-hunters’ deposits appears again from Teviotdale’s (1924) careful and detailed investigations at Shag Point. Teviotdale found the moa-bones distributed through the midden-refuse from top to bottom, lying in one instance immediately above a layer of fish-scales, and in another above a dog skull, he also found clear evidence of carcases having been flung down together. His discovery of artificially drilled holes in moa egg-shell has already been mentioned. Teviotdale (1924 and 1932) and Skinner (1924b) both agree that the human culture associated with these moa remains was typically Polynesian, and did not differ significantly from that of Otago natives at the time of the first British occupation. Skinner observes that while no defi¬ nite date can be assigned to these deposits, the subsidence of the land since that time (many ovens are now well below high-water mark) and the general appearance of the excavations suggest considerable antiquity, a conclusion supported by Teviotdale s more recent excavations at Papatowai (1937, 1938, a and b), where large trees have grown over the area since the deposits were laid down. As to species, all the South Island forms were included in the oven debris, though Em. crassus and “Eu. elephant opus” were in preponderance; there were relatively few of Dinomis , AinomaloptevyA and Megalaptei y.\ . Maori Tradition. While archaeological evidence points to a considerable lapse of time since moa-hunter deposits were laid down, Maori tradition appears to contribute more conflicting opinion as to the bird’s ultimate survival. The earliest enquirer from Maori sources, Polack 94 (1838), wrote: “The natives added that in times long past they received the tradition that very large birds had existed.” He thought these birds might still live in the remote parts of the South Island, but, as he himself realized, the stories which occasioned this suggestion contained much that was fanciful. Even more definitely Colenso (1844a, p. 89) affirmed that the otherwise rich and detailed body of Maori tradition gives us nothing about the moa save fabulous stories; Grey (1870), criticising a general statement to this effect by Haast (1870), said that allusions to the moa were found in native poetry, but the Rev. J. W. Stack (1875) pointed out that the word moa , which is the eastern Poly¬ nesian word for a fowl, appeared only seven times in Grey’s Polynesian Mythology (1855), five times without reference to a bird (i.e. as a name or a word contraction), and that the only significant saying was “Lost (or hidden) as the moa”; this was in an old chant indicating that the moa had passed into tradition long ago. Furthermore, from his own knowledge of the legends of South Island Maoris, Stack had (1872) recorded that the last-arriving Maori tribes, the Ngai Tahu 250 years before, had no traditions of the moa, and that the earlier tribes, the Ngati-mamoe and Waitaha, had only vague and meagre legends about it. Another recorder of South Island tales, the Rev. J. F. H. Wohlers (1875, 1876) was not told one word about the moa, unless the story of the huge man-eating bird be a vague reference to it; but the diary of the Rev. J. Watkin (1841), quoted by Teviotdale (1932) records fables of long-extinct monster birds. Grey was followed by Maning (1876), McDonnell (1889), White (quoted by Travers 1876) and Field (1894), all with stories purporting to be derived from legends, but without evidence as to source and accuracy. Some included most improbable tales of men still living who claimed to have eaten the moa, and to have hunted it, though by such unlikely means as running it down by relays of chasers (McDonnell) ; Field added word of the existence of a moa-feather head-dress, but Buller identified it as of cassowary feathers, evidently one of the well-known Torres Strait Islands circlets. Other details include natural history errors such as statements that the moa had no hind toe, that it flapped its wings as it ran, and that it stood on one leg, though in this particular we have to accept the possibility that the moa differed from other struthious birds. Precise details of hunting methods have been recorded by J. White, but the hunting chants that went with them have, he says (1925, 172) been long forgotten! To these reports of recent existence are opposed those of Haast (1878) who was told by an old Maori, Morehu, that the moa had disappeared long ago; and of Colenso (1880, 81), from an east coast chief, that his forefathers had heard of the moa, which anciently had been burnt up by the “fires of Tamatea,” but that they had never seen its body, only its bones. Colenso adds similar accounts from Ngati Porou and Urewera chiefs, and also observes that in the few scattered allusions to the moa among the 900 poems in Grey’s “Polynesian Mythology” there is no reference to hunting and feasts ; he considered that both Grey and White had given too ready acceptance to present-day Maori stories, which, he said, were not from reliable old tradition, but had been built up from European enquiries and interpretations. Such an assertion is not easy to check, but the Wairarapa moa legend given by Downes (1926, 36) may be what Colenso had in mind. Here the Maoris are said to have burnt the country and stampeded the moas into the swamp where they perished. Apart from the unlikelihood of the natives, well-known game preseiveis, being so stupid as to destroy a rich supply of food, or even to leave the birds they had hunted to rot in the swamps, the story appears to be a recasting of the explanations offered by Europeans who did not realize that Pleistocene or even early Recent swamp deposits long antedate human occupation. Colenso s opinion also finds support in Mair s important statement (1890) that, in the thousands of pages of native land court evi¬ dence he had transcribed, evidence in support of claims to lands and full of interminable details from tradition of hunting all kinds of creatures, there was not one woid about 95 the moa,” neither was there any reference to it in all the ancient karakia (chants) dealing with hunting and trapping. Mair thought it inconceivable that the Maoii records should contain no details, nor even references to the moa if he had known and hunted it , indeed the Maniopoto chiefs had told him directly, “We do not know anything about the moa. though perhaps our ancestors did.” Another indication of the Maori s lack of knowledge of the moa is in W. B. D. Mantell’s manuscript “Notes of a journey to Waingongoro for moa-bones, 1847,” in the Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington. After supper had a long talk with the Maoris about the bones. Showed them Owen s plates, which enlightened them. After a general discussion it was decided they were tno cones of cows drowned at the Deluge of Noah.” On the other hand, there is the story recorded by Graham (1919) that Rangi-hua-moa, who lived in 1675 according to the genealogy, received her name from the last feast of moa eggs in her district ; I suggested to Mr. Graham that this story might have been brought forward from an earlier ancestress, but he knows of no prior bearer of the name in the genealogies. Other Maori legends state positively that the moa disappeared long ago. Wanganui folk (Best 1896) said it had lived only in times long past, when their ancestors slew many mythical monsters; Beattie (1915, 107, 135; 1918, 150; 1919, 50) gives separate South Island statements that it was killed out by the very early tribes ; and the poem recorded by Davies and Pope (1907, 46, 53) says that, at Reporoa, Tamatea destroyed them “with ancient, magic, all-consuming fire.” In all this conflicting opinion the issue rests, as Hutton (1892b) pointed out, on the reliability of the native stories as ancient tradition, and in this connection it will be observed that those records which are indubitably free from the influence of leading ques¬ tions and interpretation by European enquirers, i.e. those of the early missionaries and the native land court records, give no indication of survival to even moderately recent times. The native attribution of the destruction of the moa to the “fires of Tamatea” is of interest, and it is not impossible that this may refer to a natural phenomenon — to one of the great volcanic showers that have emanated from the central north island. Grange (1931) has shown that showers from the Taupo eruption had burnt and buried trees fifty miles to the south-east, i.e. at Te Pohue, and he considers (letter to the writer, 6/5/40) that it probably destroyed forest at Waikaremoana. It is not suggested that this particular shower caused the fires of Tj matea — it was far too long ago ; but Burrell’s shower on Mt. Egmont occurred only four or five hundred years ago (Oliver 1931) and, as Dr. Grange considers (letter 7/7/40) that the Kaharoa shower, the last pre-European eruption in the Rotorua district, may have occurred approximately 1,000 years ago, it could well have been within early Maori experience. Tregear (1895, 585) suggests that the legend of fires of Tamatea may have been brought by the Maoris from Polynesia and localized here; but the story as independently recorded by H. Hill (1914, 340) says: “The fire was not the same as our fire, but embers were sent by Rangi,” i.e. the god of the sky. The Taupo showers are mentioned to draw attention to the fact that even such a destruc¬ tive agency did not permanently eliminate the moa; in some of the Waikaremoana caves, skeletons lay above at least one layer of pumice. This Dr. Grange has kindly identified for me as probably of the Gisborne shower, which was followed by two showers, one of which, the Taupo shower, also fell at Waikaremoana. It do not know* whether the moa returned to the extensive plains around Lake Taupo after these eruptions; the only specimen that I have from the district is a partial skeleton found by Mr. E. Earle Vaile in the bank of a deep stream cutting near Reporoa, and I have no record of surface finds, oi of gizzaid stones, and it will be remembered that Mr. N. H. Taylor found none during his close examination (soil survey) of this area. 96 Numerous occurrences of bones on the surface, particularly in Otago, have been held to prove recent survival ; but these bones decayed and disappeared very quickly after discovery, and, as Hutton pointed out (1892b, 165-7), if the birds of which they were the remains had lived an equally short time ago, reliable Maori tradition must be full of authentic details of habits of the moa and of its being hunted. But references are vague and legendary, and we must therefore regard the surface remains as very old, having been long preserved just below the ground until European burning and cultivation brought them to the surface and exposed them to rapid decay. With regard to the preservation of desiccated skin, flesh and feathers in certain Central Otago caves, Hutton may again be followed in attributing this to the generally dry climate experienced by that district. The preservation of human remains recorded by Pyke (1890) is a striking illustration of this. In final consideration of the probable date of extinction of the moa, it is necessary to take into account the stages of occupation of the land by the Maori. We know that the great fleet migration from Tahiti of about 1350 A.D. was preceded by Toi’s smaller party (c. 1150 A.D.) and that Kupe’s voyage of discovery had taken place two hundred years before that. The traditions vary as to whether Kupe found prior inhabitants, but they agree that he took the much-prized greenstone, also moa bones, back with him. It is unlikely that he himself would have even discovered greenstone, let alone have acquired knowledge of its qualities and potentialities, on a brief visit ; more probably he obtained it from people already here. Uncertainty in tradition as to earlier folk is not unlikely; the colonists of this country who have a place in Maori and Polynesian history are those who, having discovered the land, were able to send back word of their new country and an invitation to their kinsmen to follow them. Other successful outward voyagers who failed to make the return journey would have been simply written off by their kin at home as lost at sea, and it is by no means unlikely that the first arrivals here were of this category. Now it is patent that, to a native race provided with only a few tropical food plants, the North Island would offer better scope for settlement than the South, and that both the first arrivals and the successive waves of immigrants would endeavour to settle there. The population would increase rapidly in the North Island, more slowly in the South, where less means of sustenance would have maintained smaller tribal groups. We have already noted that with regard to moa population the reverse was probably the case, that their numbers were greater on the extensive South Island grasslands than around the coastal borders of the heavily forested North. We therefore see the likelihood of the fewer North Island moas being actively hunted and their eggs consumed (Murison, 1872) by the rapidly increasing invaders, and exterminated within a few generations of the first arrivals, so that by the time the historical fleet-migrants reached the land only traditions of the bird would reach them. Nor would the new arrivals be at pains to pre¬ serve the legends of those whom they were supplementing or absorbing. Later, when these new northerners had in turn penetrated in force to the South Island, the moa would have been long exterminated by the first waves of the Waitaha folk (Teviotdale, 1932, 118), and tradition of it would have faded into uncertainty. Thus some measure of agreement may be established between the geographical con¬ ditions endured by the moa, the history of Maori occupation, reliable native tradition and the results of archaeological investigation, all pointing to the final extermination of the moa by the earliest Polynesian immigrants a considerable time ago, first in the North Island and later in the South, and probably before the arrival of the immediate ancestors of the present Maori tribes in the Fleet migration of 600 years ago. 97 SUMMARY. The „< . — b.« «< of bones of individual birds of the genus^ ™“^moana outiet barrier), indicates ary existence in one locality (caves 1 _ , nrocortionate width of leg-bones, but a species exhibiting not only great range m *1Z® femur tjb;a and metatarsus in different also a haphazardness as to the relate si • J *h ^nected from caves in the Mangao- individuals. This is also confirmed gerieg of individuals of another genus taki district (west of Te Kuiti a"d g The observed range and irregularity in (Eury apteryx) from the sand-hills of Doubtless B y. . .. + :7P T variation are accepted as criteria for defining the species by fS ^ and of the of measurements of all available skeletons and sets of bones °fp\ 7nd detailed descrip- types of previously proposed species (Tables 1 to 19 and A to ^ tions of skulls pelves and sterna of the different species are submitted m support ol the classification proposed. Descriptions of the discrete basic ^ immature skulls are given, chiefly for Anomahptery x ^dtforms adding to, in some particulars, the descriptions of T. J. Parker (1895b). The classification of genera on the size and proportionate width of leg-bones has been replaced by one derived mainly from characteristics of the skull sternum, pelvis, orm of the leg-bones and proportionate length of the three bones of the leg (p. ) • The Dinornithidae are characterised by a long metatarsus and a wide flattened skull with a broad triangular beak (genus Dinornis). The Anomalopterygidae have a short metatarsus and a highei, more rounded skull with a narrower, though not necessarily a sharp beak. Within this family the sub¬ family A n o m alo ptervg i n ae (Anomalopteryx, Megalapteryx and P achy arms) retain the five outer toe-joints and have a sharp-pointed beak and an expanded maxillary antrum while the sub-family Emeinae have only four outer toe- joints, a round-tipped beak and slightly reduced (Emeus) or altogether collapsed (Euryapteryx) antrum. Altogether six geneia are represented and twenty species: a synopsis appears on p. 77. The origins of the Palaeognathae are discussed, in particular the view of P. R. Lowe (1928) that they are derived from an early avian stock that had never possessed pennal feathers nor acquired the power of flight; the conclusion offered is that the struthious birds, possessing in common a primitive palaeognathous palate and certain other charac¬ ters and habits, are a related group, and that they are descended from a proto-carinate stock that had gained some measure of flight. Within the Palaeognathae, the Dinornithiformes and Apterygiformes are regarded as allied but not closely, while these two stand closer to the Rheiiformes than to the Struthioniformes and Casuariiformes. For this South American-New Zealand relation¬ ship, marked even more definitely in other faunal and in floral associations, the necessary land connections may be found via the Antarctic Continent in late Cretaceous or early Tertiary times. Although fossil remains of the moa are not found earlier than the mid- Pliocene (Nukumaruan) , the few known for this period indicate the full attainment already of dinornithic characters and the development of species that survived until the Recent. Differentiation of species is regarded as having arisen, not through isolation on areas separated by submergence, but in response to varied environmental conditions over the area as a whole. The greater inter-island divergence of species in the heavy moas is attributed to the semi-pervious, selective nature of a long-standing mountain isthmus (later broken by Cook Strait) which obstructed their inter-island passage while permit- 98 ting that of the taller, slenderer types. The continuous and extensive variation in size and proportion of all species may be related to the easy conditions, abundance of food, and absence of predatory enemies, which permitted the attainment of any size and proportion that food abundance made possible without the elimination of intermediate forms. By way of comparison it is noted that the retention of speed has been a limiting factor with regard to the development of varieties among other struthious birds which must meet the competition of predatory mammals. Destruction of moas in considerable numbers occurred during a pluvial period follow¬ ing the Pleistocene glaciation. The pluvial conditions themselves and the accompanying extension of forest areas in this period may separately or conjointly have been to the disadvantage of the moa, but they did not prevent its survival until the advent of man a thousand years or more ago. It is probable that at this time the more extensive grass¬ land of the South Island supported a greater moa population than the heavily forested North Island; for agricultural reasons, however, the incoming Polynesians would first occupy the North Island, where the small moa population would be quickly exterminated. Archaeological evidence, especially in the South Island, confirms the taking of the moa and its eggs for food by man, but the deposits are of considerable antiquity : it is pointed out that certain associations, or occurrences together, of moa bones and Maori midden material are secondary, and have resulted from the erosion of younger overlying sand-hills and the consequent mingling of their midden material with much older moa remains. Maori tradition is found to be vague and contradictory as to the time of extinc¬ tion of the moa ; but the accounts recorded by the earliest missionaries, before European investigation and speculation had spread knowledge of it among the Maoris are regarded as the more reliable; they also agree with the archaeological evidence that the moa dis¬ appeared a very long time ago. On the whole the indications are that the earliest human occupants quickly exterminated the moa, first in the North Island and later in the South, and that it had disappeared before the great fleet migration of 1350 A.D. brought to these shores the ancestors of the present Maori tribes, whose legends have preserved vague accounts obtained from the earlier Polynesian folk believed to have already been in occupation of the land for some generations. 99 Priority of Names Proposed for Genera and Species of Dinornithiformes. Date. 1843 July 1844 March 1844 June 5 1846 July 1848 April 22 1851 Jan. 1 1852 1855 April 11 1856 July 30 1869 May 1869 June 1 1870 Jan. 1874 1875 July 1879 1883 Jan. 1884 1884 May 1886 Dec. 1891 1891 April 25 1891 Nov. Names admitted in the present cla ssification are in BOLD TYPE. Proposal. Dinornis Owen (D. novae-zealandiae Ow.) Dinornis novae-zealandiae Owen Publication. P.Z.S. 1843, 8 P.Z.S. 1843, pt. 11, 8 Ow.) Mcgalornis Owen (name withdrawn! Dinornis giganteus Owen Dinornis didiformis Owen Dinornis struthoides Owen Dinornis ingens Owen | Dinornis dromaeoides Owen Palapteryx Owen (D. ingens Dinornis crassus Owen Dinornis casuarinus Owen Dinornis curtus Owen Dinornis ingens var. robustus Owen Palapteryx geranoides Owen Dinornis rhcides Owen Emeus Reichenbach (D. crassus Ow.) Syornis Reichenbach (D. casuarinus Ow.) Anomalopteryx Reichenbach (D. didiformis Ow.) Movia Reichenbach (D. ingens Ow.) Moa Reichenbach (D. giganteus Ow.) Dinornis gracilis Owen | Dinornis elephantopus Owen Dinornis maximus Haast Dinornis maximus Owen I Dinornis gravis Owen Meionornis Haast (D. casuarinus Ow.) Euryapteryx Haast (D. gravis Ow.) D. crassus var. major Hutton D. elephantopus var. major Hutton | Dinornis altus Owen Dinornis huttonii Owen Dinornis parvus Owen Dinornis didinus Owen Megalapteryx Haast (M. hectori Haast) Megalapteryx hcctori Haast Dinornis oweni Haast Megalapteryx tenuipes Lydekker Anomalopteryx geranoides Lyd. Emeus gravipcs Lyd. Pachyornis Lyd. (D. . elephantopus Ow.) Pachyornis immanis Lyd. Pachyornis rothschildi Lyd. Dinornis excclsus Hutton Dinornis validus Hutton Dinornis firmus Hutton Dinornis potens Hutton Tylopteryx Hutton ( D. struthioide Ow.) Dinornis torosus Hutton P.Z.S. 1843, 19 P.Z.S. 1844 pt. 11, 144 T.Z.S. 3, pt. 3, 242 „ 244 yy ” 247 Dinornis |d. novae-zealandiae Owen | Dinornis |D. giganteus Owen A. didiformis (Owen) I D. novae-zealandiae Ow, D. ingens Owen yy yy „ 253 / yy 91 i. didiformis (Ow.) P.Z.S. 1846, pt. 14, 46 / Dinornis „ 46 E Em. crassus (Owen) 47 \l 1m. crassus (Ow.) „ 48 1 Eu. curtus (Owen) - 48 1 3. robustus Owen T.Z.S. 3, pt. 5, 348 1 Eu. geranoides (Ow.) T.Z.S. 4, pt. 1, 8 1 [ndeterminate Av. Syst. Nat., p. xxx Emeus ,, , , > f ” J Emeus ,, >> ” ” 1 Anomalopteryx ,, )> ” Dinornis ,, >> ” ” Dinornis P.Z.S. 1854, pt. 22, 246 D. ingens Ow. P.Z.S. 1856, pt. 24, 54 P. elephantopus (Owen) T.N.Z.I. i, 87 D. maximus Haast T.Z.S. 6, pt. 8, 497 D. maximus Haast T.Z.S. 7, pt. 2, 141 Eu. gravis (Owen) T.N.Z.I. 6, 426 Emeus T.N.Z.I. 6, 427 Euryapteryx T.N.Z.I. 7, 276 E. crassus (Ow.) T.N.Z.I. 7, 279 P. elephantopus (Ow.) E.B.N.Z. 361 D. maximus Haast E.B.N.Z. 430 Em. huttonii (Owen) T.Z.S. 11, Pt. 8, 233 A. didiformis (Ow.) T.Z.S. 11, pt. 8, 257 M. didinus (Owen) T.N.Z.I. 16, 576 Megalapteryx T.N.Z.I. 16, 576 1 M. didinus (Ow.) T.Z.S. 12, pt. 5, 171 P. oweni (Haast) C.F.B.B.M. 251 M. didinus (Ow.) 288 \Eu. exilis (Hutt.) 297 \Eu. gravis (Ow.) 316 Pachyornis 343 P. elephantopus (Ow.) 481 P. elephantopus (Ow.) N.Z. Jn. Sci., new iss., D. giganteus Ow. No. 6, 247 yy yy ” D. maximus Haast yy yy >> D. ingens Ow. yy yy ” D. robustus Ow. f yy yy ” Dinornis yy yy >> D. torosus Hutt 100 Date. Proposal. Publication. Present Attribution. 1891 Nov. Palapteryx plcnus Hutton N.Z. Jn. Sci., new iss., D. torosus Hutt. No. 6, 248 Mesopteryx Hutton (D. huttonii Ow.) ff ff ff Emeus Euryaptcryx pondcrosus Hutton N.Z. Jn. Sci., new iss., P. elephantopus (Ow.) No. 6, 249 Euryaptcryx pygmaeus Hutton N.Z. Jn. Sci. 1, No. 6, P. pygmaeus (Hutton) 249 1892 April Pachyornis rothschildi Lydekker P.Z.S. for 1891, 479 P. elephantopus (Ow.) 1892 May Anomalopteryx antiquus Hutton T.N.Z.I. 24, 124 A. antiquus Hutt. 1892 • • Palaeocasuarius Forbes noin. nitd. T.N.Z.I. 24, 189 M cgalapteryx 1893 May Dinornis strcnuus Hutton T.N.Z.I. 25, 8 D. torosus Ow. Anomalopteryx fort is Hutton T.N.Z.I. 25, 9 A. didiformis (Ow.) Euryaptcryx compacta Hutton T.N.Z.I. 25, 11 E. huttonii (Ow.) Pachyornis inhabilis Hutton T.N.Z.I. 25, 11 P. elephantopus (Ow.) Pachyornis valgus Hutton T.N.Z.I. 25, 12 P. elephantopus (Ow.) 1897 June Anomalornis Hutton (vice Anomalop- T.N.Z.I. 29, 543 Anomalopteryx tcryx ) Euryaptcryx exilis Hutton T.N.Z.I. 29, 552 Eu. exilis Hutt. 1907 Nov. 12 . . Megalapteryx hamiltoni Rothschild Extinct Birds, 197 M. didinus (Ow.) Emeus boothi Rothschild „ „ 210 Eu. gravis (Ow.) Emeus haasti Rothschild „ „ 210 Eu. gravis (Ow.) Emeus parkcri Rothschild 211 Eu. gravis (Ow.) Palaeocasuarius Rothschild (Pal. 219 Megalapteryx haasti Roth.) Palaeocasuarius haasti Rothschild „ „ 220 M. didinus (Ow.) Palaeocasuarius velox Rothschild 220 M. didinus (Ow.) Palaeocasuarius elegans Rothschild „ „ 220 M. didinus (Ow.) 1927 Aug. 15 Dinornis expunctus Archey T.N.Z.I. 58, pt. 1, 2, 152 Eu. gcranoidcs (Ow.) 1930 • • • • Euryaptcryx kuranui Oliver N.Z. Birds 52 Eu. gravis (Ow.) 1941 • • • • Megalapteryx benhami Archey Bull. Auck. Inst. Mus. 1 M. benhami Ar. Pachyornis mappini Archey Bull. Auck. Inst. Mus. 1 P. mappini Ar. BIBLIOGRAPHY. This bibliography, which includes the citations in Lambrecht (1933) and Hamilton (1894, 1895a and 1904), contains all the references I could discover. It is admitted that some are trivial, but this is indicated in the citation. Those which I myself have not actually seen are marked f ; those marked * are not references to the moa, but have been introduced into the discussion of various points. Adams, D. fl8 72. Life in the Primeval World. 186 ff. Allis, T. 1864. Notice of a skeleton of Dinornis. Proc. Linn. Soc. London, 8, xlvi, 50, 52. Abstract in fNat. Hist. Rev., 1864, 638; JZoologist, 1864, 9195. 1865. Further notes on the skeleton of D. robustus in the Yorkshire Museum. Proc. Linn. Soc. London, 8, 140-141. Andersen, Johannes. 1940. The so-called “spool” artifact. Journ. Polynes. Soc., 49, No. 4, 595. Andrews, C. W. 1896. On the skull, sternum and shoulder-girdle of Aepyornis. The Ibis (7), 2, 376-388. 1897. On a complete skeleton of Megalapteryx tenuipes Lyd. in the Tring Museum. Novit. Zool. 4, 188-194. J1898. Zool. Zentralblatt, 6, 913. 1899. Notes on a nearly complete skeleton of Dinornis maximus. Geol. Mag. (4), 6, 395-7. Angas, G. F. 1847. Savage Life and Scenes in New Zealand, 1, 243 (mention only). Anon. fl843. Comment on Owen’s description of the type femur of Dinornis. Polytechnic Jnl. July, 1843. J1858. Living moa at Nelson. Wanganui Chronicle, May 20; Otago Witness, Oct. 2. 1862a. The Geological Age of New Zealand. Chapman’s New Zealand Magazine, 1, no. 5, 216-7. fl862b. The coexistence of man with the Dinornis of New Zealand. Nat. Hist. Rev. 7. J1863. Moa on the western coast of New Zealand. Zoologist, 8847. f 1864. The last of the moas. Chambers Jnl., 41, 115. 41870. The moa or Dinornis as human food. Zoologist, 2103-4. 101 1873a. The moas of New Zealand Nature 11. 289-290. ^ Zoo, Soc„ n0. 14, 210. 1873b. D. maximus : original leg-bones exhibited by . f 1876. The Moa. Zoologist, 2842. -j-1883. The moa at home. Zoologist, 273-282. f 1886. Moa. Zoologist, 97. 1902. Note on auction of egg at Stevens Nature, 66 1W. Karamu. Trans. N.Z. Archey, G. 1927. On a moa skeleton from Amodeo Bay. and some moa bones Inst., 58, 151-6. . . T M ! na 2, 113-121. 1931. Notes on sub-fossil bird remains. Rec ^ 12> 155. Bain, J. M. fl860. Fossil bird-bones from New Zealand. Ed.nb^N^ sd Xech._ 7, 119-120. Bartrum J. a. 1924. Bones of the moa in volcanic beds at „ cc Beattie, H. 1920. Nature-lore of the southern Maori Trans. N.Z^ "Sg- ' ' y k 2 39-52. Beebe, C. W. 1915. A tetrapteryx stage m the ancestry of bud . Zoo og.ca, Benham, W. B. 1899. Exhibited moa egg-shell. Trans ^ the 'university of Otago. Trans. N.Z. 1902a. Note on an entire egg of a moa, now in the museum ot tne u *1902b! Earthworms and Palaeography. Rep. Austr. Assoc. Adv. Set., 9, 335. 1903. On the eggs of the moa. Ibis (8), 3, 632-4. ^ ^ 1910. Discovery of moa-remains on Stewart Island. Trans. N.Z. 1913 Notes on footprints of the moa. In Wilson,^ ran^ ' ” ’ 64 87-104 1935. The skeleton of a small moa, Emeus huttonn Owen, Trans. N.Z. ■, ,7 ^ ^ Benson, W. N. *1923. Palaeozoic and Mesozoic : seas in A^”las*'z ^ ‘ 59>’ 5n_602[ Berry J A. 1928. The volcanic deposits of Scinde Island. * Best, E. 1896. The Maori and the moa. Journ. Polynes Socs, 5, 121-1 . 1917. The land of Tara. Journ. Polynes. Soc., 26, 48. Beake. 41877. History of the restoration of ext, net a tmma £ J 9 1 ^ Booth B S 1875. Description of the moa swamp at Hamilto . • ’ 1877! On a second discovery of moa bones at Hamilton. Ib,d„ 9, 365-6. RpnnFPip W S 11931. Briefliches uber Dinorms. Jahrb. f. Min., 66$. BuTck T L 1931. The Mystery of the Moa. New Plymouth, Thos^ Avery & Sons. 1936. The Discovery of Dinorms. New Plymouth, Thomas Avery & Sons. Beeeee' WVLJ' 41864 N^of 'ol&t if Mother bhds ' formerly inhabiting New Zealand. ' ^t^y” -Zealand. N.Z. Exhibitimi, 1865. 20 P, (Moa, PP- 3-4). 41876. On the Flora and Fauna of New Zealand. Zoologist, 5113 . i qqq a TTi'ctnrv of the Birds of New Zealand. 2nd ed., 1, xvm-xxxv., 2, 333-30b. _ , ^8mGaMaws^of1Sdesc^7withS^odificatiomr'"Trans.0N^eTnrte,a2^^vTo4AlMoa,n85-88^1 97,^98^ 101-103 b + ? T of Silver’s “New Zealand Birds.” Figures of moas. . . Chandler, A. C. 4*1916. A study of the structure of feathers, with reference to their taxonom.c sigmficance. Univ. Calif. Pub. Zool. 13, 243-o96. . . y -r rn ccj o Chapman, F. R. 1884. On moa remains from the Mackenzte Country and elsewhere. N.Z. Journ. Sci. 4, 1885.' "Notes on moa remains in the Mackenzie Country and other localities. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 17, 172-8. 1900. (Report on an address). Trans. N.Z. Inst., 32, 438. , d Meet. Chase, f 1849. On some bones of the Dinornis novae-sealandiae. Proc. Amer. ssoc. • 267 271 Cheeseman, T. F. 1876. Notice of the discovery of moa remains at Ellerslte, near Auckland. Trans. N.Z. Chilton, C^SW^The biological relations of the sub-antarctic islands of New Zealand. Sub-antarctic Islands f Z II 793 807 Christie, H. M. ’ 1906. Recent discoveries of moa-bones at Miramar Peninsula, Wellington. Trans. N.Z. Inst., Christie, Rev. J. 41888-1893. Newspaper articles. N.Z. Presbyterian, Dec .1, 18881 D™e*n r„„ 1880- March 1890' April 10, Apr. 24, May 31, 1890; Jan., Sept., 1891; Feb. 3, 1893, Otago Daily Times, July ’8, 1890; Sept. 7, 1891; Sydney Presbyterian, Sept. 18, 1890; North Otago imes, Nov. 23, 1891; Jan. 9, 1892; Feb. 3, 1892. Clarke W. B. 1869. Dinornis as an Australian genus. Geol. Mag. (1), 6, .jSO-084. Cockayne, L. *1928. The Vegetation of New Zealand, 2nd ed. Leipzig, Wm. Engehnann. Cockburn-Hood, T. H. 1874a. On the moa-cave at Earnscleugh. Trans. N.Z. Inst 6, ^ +1874b. Dinornis: remarks on its footprints and recent extinction. Proc. Roy. Soc., Edinburgh, , 102 Cocquet, Marista, P. P. fl907. Notes zoologique sur la Novelle Zelande. Les Missions Catholiques Lyon, no. 1961-1980. Colenso, W. tl843. The moa. An account of some enormous fossil bones of an unknown species of the class Aves recently discovered in New Zealand. Tasm. Journ. Nat. Sci. 1. 1844a. An account of some enormous fossil bones of an unknown species of the class Aves, lately dis¬ covered in New Zealand. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 14, 81-96. 1844b. Journal of a naturalist in New Zealand. London Journ. Botany, 3, 1-62. 1880. On the moa. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 12, 63-108. 1892. Status quo : a Retrospect, etc. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 24, 468-478. 1894. Notes and observations on M. A. de Quatrefage’s paper “On Moas and moa-hunters.” Trans. N.Z. Inst., 26, 498-513. Copeland, E. B. *1939. Fern evolution in Antarctica. Philippine Journ. Sci., 7, no. 2, 157-189. Coughtrey, J. M. 1875. Anatomical notes on moa-remains from Knobby Range. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 7, 266-273. Coulon, L. *1*1870. Bones of D. crassus from Oamaru. Bull. Soc. Neuchatel, 8, 476-7. Cranwell, Lucy M. *1938. Fossil Pollens: the key to the vegetation of the past. N.Z. Journ. Sci. Tech. 19, 628-645. *1939. Southern-Beech Pollens. Rec. Auckland Inst. Mus. 2, no. 4, 175-196. Crawford, J. C. 1873. Moa and human remains on Miramar Peninsula. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 5, 431. Dallas, W. S. 1865. Dinornis robustus : on the feathers of a skeleton in the Yorkshire Museum. Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1865, 265; also in Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist (3), 16, 66-69; and Ann. Sci. Nat., 4, 292. Darton, T. 1*1888. Geology and the Moa. Articles in Dunedin Evening Star Supplement, 15, 22, 29 Sept. Davenport, C. B. f*1906. Inheritance in Poultry. Publ. Carnegie Inst. Washington, 51, 136 pp. Davies, G. H. 1907. The name Moa. Journ. Polynesian Soc. 16, 107. Davies, G. H., and Pope, J. H. 1907. Ancient Maori Poem. Journ. Polynesian Soc. 46, 53. Day, J. f 1847. Analysis of Animal and Organic Matter in Bones of Ostrich and Moa. Reports on Zoology for 1843-44, Ray Soc. Publ. 294-5 (?). Deane, J., and Mantell, G. A. 1843. Correspondence on the Ornithichnites of the Connecticut River sand¬ stone and the Dinornis of New Zealand. Silliman’s Jnl. 45, 177-183. De Blamville. 1839. Remarks against Owen’s identification of Dinornis bones. Osteographie. de Quatrefages, A. J1883. Les Moas et le Chasseurs de Moas. Ann. Sci. Nat. Zool. 16, 43. 1884. Moas and moa-hunters. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (5), 14, 124-141, 159-175. 1893. The moas and the moa-hunters. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 25, 17-49. J1894. Rapport sur l’exposition faite du Museum des objets d’histoire naturelle receullis par M. Filhol et de L’lsla. Arch. miss. sci. et lit. 5, 24. De Vis, C. W. 1884. The moa ( Dinornis ) in Australia. Proc. Roy. Soc. Queensland, 1, 23-8; also in N.Z. Jorn. Sci. (2), 1, 97-101. Dieffenbach, E. 1843. Travels in New Zealand. II, 195. J1845. On the Geology of New Zealand. Brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Downes, T. W. 1916. New light on the period of extinction of the moa. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 48, 426. Drevermann, F. J1916. Die Moa (in der Schausatnmlung des Senckenberg-museums) . 46 Bericht. Sencken- berg. Naturforsch. Ges., 1-5. Dusen, P. *1908. Uber die tertiare Flora der Magellanslander. Wiss. Erg. Schwed. Exped. Magellanslandern. Bd. 1, 4. Earland, A. *1934. Foraminifera, Part III. Discovery Reports, 10, 1-208. Ellmann, J. B. J1861. Brief notes on the birds of New Zealand. The Zoologist, London, 7464-73. Enys, J. D. 1872. Notes respecting the discovery of the moa in the Kaikoura Peninsula. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 4, 403. Evans, W. P. *1937. The flora which yielded Tertiary lignites of Canterbury, Otago and Southland. N.Z. Journ. Sci. Tech. 19, pt. 3, 188-193. Ewart, J. C. 1921. Proc. Zool. Soc., London, for 1921, 609-642. Ewen, C. A. 1896. On the discovery of moa-remains on Riverton Beach, drans. N.Z. Inst. 28, 651-2. Field, PI. C. 1882. On the extinction of the moa. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 14, 540. 1891. On moa-bones. N.Z. Journ. Sci. 1 (new issue), no. 6, 255-6. 1892a. Discoveries of moa-bones. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 24, 558-561. 1892b. On the shifting of sand-dunes. Ibid., 561-8. 1894. The date of the extinction of the moa. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 26, 560-8. Finscpi, O. tl896. Charakteristik der avifauna Neuseelands. Globus, 69, no. 2-4, 9 pp. Florin, R. The Tertiary fossil conifers of South Chile and their phyto-geographical significance. Kungl. Svenska Vetenskapsakad. Hadling. (3), 19, no. 2. Forbes, H. O. 1890. On the extinction of the moa. Nature, 43, 105. 1891a. On avian remains found under a lava-flow near Timaru, in Canterbury. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 23, 366-373. 1891b. Note on the disappearance of the moa. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 23, 373-5. 103 1892a. Preliminary notice of additions to the extinct avifauna of New Zealand. Trans. N.Z. . 185-9. 1892b. Evidence of a wing in Dinornis. Nature, 45, 257. 1892c. On a recent discovery of extinct birds in New Zealand Nature, 45 416- ^ «Anthropo_ 1892d. On the contemporaneity of the Maori and the Moa. Nature, logy at the British Association.) ^ 1893a. The Moas of New Zealand. Nat. Sci. 2, no. 15, 374-380. s . 3 318_9. 1893b. fOn Anomaloptcryx antiquus Hutton and other species of moa . rom • * +1900 Catalogue of the . . . Birds ... in the Derby Museum. Bull. Liverp. Mus., 3 27-28. Forbes, W. A. 1881. On the conformation of the thoracic end of the trachea in the ratite ir s. Soc. London, for 1881, 778-788. \Q2-S „ T 1073 A description of the Earnscleugh moa cave. Trans. N.Z,. Inst, a, iuz . , F— er M T T Unteisuchungen zur morphologic u„d systematik der voge.-Ratite (71), Dmormthmae, Gadow, H.^1 tl893.6^ Rathae : the most recent views on the Dinornithidae. Broun’s Klass u. Ord. der Thier-Re.chs. Bd. 6, Abth. 4, 103-106. _ T . r iov? f.A.'*, Gareod, A. H. 1873. On certain muscles of the thigh of birds. Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1873, 64.. Gilkinson, R. +1930. Early Days in Central Otago. In,t 4 127.8. Gillies, T. B. 1872. On the occurrence of footprints of the moa at Poverty Bay. Gosse, P. H. J1870. The Romance of Natural History, 31-40. Graham, G. 1919. Rangi-hua-moa. Journ. Polynesian Soc. 28, 107. Grange L. I. *1931. Volcanic Ash Showers. N.Z. Journ .Sci. Tech., 12, no. 4, 228-_46. Gregory, W. K, and Murphy, R. C. 1934. Remarks on the origins of the Ratites and Pengmns. roc. Soc. New York, nos. 45-46. Grey, Sir G. 1855. Polynesian Mythology (2nd edn. 1885). 1870 Letter in Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1870, no. 8, 116. . Gross, H. +1852. On the bones of the gigantic bird from New Zealand. Proc. Boston Soc Nat Hist. 4, -36. „ w 4.1 qqq Die Tierwelt des Erdteils lebender fossdien. Himmel und Erde, 10, 50o-5 . Moa-Resten in den Knochenhohlen des Aorere-Thales. Reise der Novara, 41865™' Notes ' on dm dimate of the Pleistocene Epoch of New Zealand. Proc. Geol. Soc Jan. 25, 186s tl868a. Beobachtungen ueber einige Vogel-Neuseelands. Mitgeteilt von O. Fmsch. Journ. f. 238-245. J1868b. Dinornis-Reste von Glenmark. Monatsber. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 551-3. fl868c. Letter in Ibis, 504. . , , rinmnri , Trans N Z 1869. On the measurement of Dinornis bones obtained . . . from a swamp at Glenmark. Trans. N.Z. Inst 1 80-89 (2nd ed. 1875 pp. 21-30). _ , , 1Q7n 1870. Letter on cooking-pits and kitchen-middens in Canterbury. Proc. Zeol. Soc. London for . , no. 4, 53-56. 1872a. Moa and moa-hunters. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 4, 66-107. 1872b. Geology of Canterbury and Westland. Ch. 16, 407-449. xT 7 t + ^ 41Q 432 fmoa 1874a. Presidential address to Philosophical Institute of Canterbury. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 6, 419-432 (moa ^“emaXonke extinct birds of New Zealand. The Ibis (3), 4, no. 15, 209-220. (Reprint of 1875a. Researches and examinations . . . in . . . Moa-bone Point Cave, Sumner Road, in . . 1872. irans. ^7 XtTst 7 54 85 1875b.’ Notes on an ancient native burial place near the Moa-bone Point, Sumner. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 7, 1875c. Notes on the moa-hunter encampment at Shag Point, Otago. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 7, 91-98. 1875d. Results of excavations and researches in and near the Moa-bone Point cave Sumner oa (Postscript). Trans. N.Z. Inst. 7, 528-530, followed by resolutions and protests to N.Z. institute ic publication, pp. 531-o, _ . . cvo 1876 Recent cavern researches in New Zealand (Moa-bone Point cave), Na ure, , ' W7. Observations on Captain Hutton’s paper “On the Maori Cooking-places at the mouth of the Shag River.” Trans. N.Z. Inst., 9, (Appendix), 670-673. 1878. Address as President of the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 10, 40. 1884. On the leg-bones of a new species of kiwi (Megalapteryx hectori). Trans. N.Z. Inst. 16, 6/0- • 1885a. Preliminary notice of paper on Dinornis oweni Haast. Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1885, no. , 482 1885b. Preliminary notice of paper on Megalapteryx hectori. Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1885, no. 35, 541. 104 1886a. On Megalapteryx hectori, a new gigantic species of Apterygian bird. Trans. Zool. Soc. London, 12, pt. 5, 161-9. 1886b. On Dinornis ozueni, a new species of the Dinornithidae, with some remarks on D. curtus. Trans. Zool. Soc. London, 12, pt. 5, 171-182. Hadfield, H. W. fl864. Notice of the remains of the moa and other birds formerly inhabiting New Zealand. Letter from W. L. Buller, Zoologist, 9197. Hale, H. J1887. The giant birds of New Zealand Popular Sci. Monthly. 30, 660. Hamel, J. t!845. Sur le genre d’oiseaux, nomme Dinornis. Bull. phys. math. Acad. St. Petersburg, 350-352. Hamilton, A. 1886. On the circumstances attending the early discovery of moa bones in New Zealand and their identification. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 18, 434. 1889. Notes on a deposit of moa-bones in the Te Aute swamp, Hawke’s Bay. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 21, 311-318. 1891. On moa gizzard-stones. N.Z. Journ. Sci., new issue, 1, no. 6, 269-270. 1892. Notes on moa gizzard-stones. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 24, 172-5. 1893a. On the fissures and caves at the Castle Rock, Southland; with a description of the remains of the existing and extinct birds found in them. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 25, 88-106. 1893b. Notes on some old flax mats found in Otago (moa feathers attached, p. 487). Trans. N.Z. Inst. 25, 486-488. 1894a. Results of a further exploration of the bone fissure at the Castle Rocks, Southland. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 26, 226-9. 1894b. Materials for a bibliography of the Dinornithidae, the great extinct birds of New Zealand. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 26, 229-257. 1895a. Further contributions towards a bibliography of the Dinornithidae . . . Supplement no. 1. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 27, 228-231. 1895b. On the feathers of a small species of moa (Megalapteryx) found in a cave at the head of the Waikaia River : with a notice of a moa-hunter’s camping-place on the Old Man Range. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 27, 232-8. 1898. Notes on a specimen of Euryapteryx from Southland. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 30, 445-6. 1904a. Second supplement to the “Materials for a bibliography of the Dinornithidae.’’ Trans. N.Z. Inst. 36, 471-3. 1904b. Note on remains of some of the extinct birds of New Zealand found near Ngapara, Otago. Ibid., 474-477. Hamilton, H. 1925. Remarks on John White’s Paper (White, J., 1925), Journ. Polynes. Soc., 34, 173-4. Hamilton, J. W. 1875. Notes on Maori traditions of the moa. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 7, 121-2. Hammond, Rev. T. G. 1924. The Story of Aotea. Christchurch, Lyttelton Times, 35-40. Harrison, W. J. 1920. Moa-bones from Martinborough. N.Z. Journ. Sci. Tech. 3, 156. Hector, J. 1865. Moa-bones in New Zealand Exhibition of 1865. Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1865, 749-751. 1866. Bones exhibited, and remains from camps at Waikouaiti, etc. Dunedin Exhibition Cat. no. 682. 1867. Notice of an egg of the great moa (Dinornis gigantcus) . Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1867, 991-2. J1871. Neue Moa funde in Neuseeland. Globus, 20, 60-62. Translation of the next. 1872a. On recent moa remains in New Zealand. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 4, 110-120. 1872b. In discussion at meeting described finding desiccated neck of moa at Clyde, and egg at Kaikoura. Ibid., 363. 1872c. On recent moa remains in New Zealand. Nature, 4, 184-186. 1873a. In Crawford, J. C. Moa and moa-remains on Miramar Peninsula. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 5, 431. 1873b. In Presidential address to Wellington Philosophical Society. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 5, 411-424. 1875. On the modes of occurrence of the moa-bones in New Zealand. Nature, 12, 441. 1883. Remarks on some bones lately discovered by Mr. H. T. Wharton in caves at Highfield, Canter¬ bury. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 15, 526. 1893. Discussion on Parker’s Classification and mutual relations of the Moas. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 25, 555-8 (reprinted from Otago Witness). 1895. On the discovery of bones of Dinorms giganteus on the surface. T.N.Z. Inst. 27, 655-6. 1897. Notes on moa-bones in gold-drift (Nelson). Trans. N.Z. Inst. 29, 607-8. 1902. Map shown giving moa distribution: discussion on McLeod, H. N., 1902, Trans. N.Z. Inst. 34, 562. Hedley, C. *1895. Surviving refugees in austral lands of ancient Antarctic life. Proc. Roy. Soc. N.S.W. 29, 278. Heilmann, G. 1926. The Origin of Birds. London, H. F. and G. Witherby. Henry, R. 1899. Moa farmers. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 31, 673-7. Hewlett, F. 1866. Described moa-bones in same oven as those of a dog. Rep. Brit. Assoc. 35, Notes and Abstracts, 86. Title only. Hill, H. 1889. Discovery of fossil moa-feathers in rocks of Pliocene age. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 21, 318-320. 1895. On the occurrence of moa footprints in the bed of the Manawatu River, near Palmerston North. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 27, 476-7. 105 , , , . . • 1 otir1 o-pnl cio-inl Why and when the moa disappeared. Trans. N.Z. 1914. The moa — legendary, historical and geologic..). Inst. 46, 330-351. Hit i M D 41911. Flightless Birds. Knowledge, 34, 3^-0-/. Hitchcock. ' f ? Supposed nest of moa. Ann. Nat. Hist., 14, 310. Hochstetter, F. 41863. Neuseeland. Ch. 31, 310. 41867a. Neue Funde von Moaresten. Verh. K. K. Geol. R. A. \\ len, . 1867b. New Zealand. Stuttgart edn. pp. 181-198. Hooker, J. D. *1847. Flora Antarctica: I. London. Hooker, W. J. 1844. Notice of Mr. Colenso’s early paper or ^ Trans. N.z. Inst. 4, 166-7. Hutton F. W. 1872a. On the microscopical structure of the eg& she 1872b. On some moa feathers. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 4, 172-3 , . Trans N Z Inst 7 274-8. 1875 On the dimensions of Dinortus bones (in Hamilton Swamp). • • • ' Note (on egg-shell) in paper by White, T. (1876T Inst ., 8, 103-8. 1876b. Notes on the Maori cooking places at die mouth ot the snag 1877 Remarks on Dr Haast's classification of the moas. 1 rails. N.Z. ., , -• 4884. On the orTgin of the flora and fauna of New Zealand. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (5), 13, 425-428. " 1891a. fn' Fo'rL774° O., 1891b. Note on the disappearance of the moa. Trans NX Inst. 23. 373-5. 1891b. On the classification of the moas. N.Z. Journ. Sen, new issue 1, no. 6, 247-9. 1 oqi r T-Tictnrv of the moas. N.Z. Journ Sci. (new issue), 1, no. 6, 261 3. . 1892a'. Notice of paper on classification read before Philosophical Institute o. Canterbury. The is, 1892, 566. n-2 179 1892b. The moas of New Zealand. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 24, 93-1/ . 1893a. On new species of moa. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 25, 6-13. 1893b. On Anomalopteryx antiqua. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 25, 14- . •{•1893c The moas of New Zealand. Nat. Sci. 3, 317-8. . , 1QQ9 1893d. On the origin of the struthious birds of Australasia. Rep. Aust. ssn. . v. ci., o 1893e. On Dinornis (?) queenslandiae. Proc. Linn. Soc. KS. Wales (2) 8 7-!°. 1895a. On the axial skeleton in the Dinornithidae. Trans N.Z. Inst., 27, 157- . 1895b. On the occurrence of a pneumatic foramen in the femur of a moa Trans. N.Z. Inst., 2/, 1896a. On a deposit of moa-bones at Kapua. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 28, 6 7- • 1896b. On the moa-bones from Enfield. Ibid., 645-650. T 9o 1896c. In Ewen, C. A., 1896, on the discovery of moa-remams on Riverton Beach. Trans. N. . 651 2 1897a. The moas of the North Island of New Zealand. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 29, 541-557. 1897b. On the leg-bones of Meionornis from Glenmark. Ibid., 557-560. 1897c.’ On two moa skulls in the Canterbury Museum. Ibid., 561-4. 1906. On a skeleton of Emeus crassus from the North Island. Trans. N.Z. ns . ol - • Hutton, F. W., and Coughtrey, M. 1875a. Notice of the Earnscleugh Cave: with remarks on some o Lie more remarkable moa remains found in it. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 7, 138-144. 1875b. Description of some moa remains from the Knobby Ranges. Ibid., 266- 7 . . Hutton, F. W., and Drummond, J. 1904. The animals of New Zealand, p. 381. Hutton, F. W., and Lydekker, R. 41392. History of the moas, or extinct flightless birds of New Zealand. Natural Science 588-592. r- i tt Jaeger, G. 1864. Bericht uber einen fast vollstandingen Schadel von Palapteryx. Reise der Novara, Geol. 11, pt 2 305 318 King L. C. *1939. The relation between the major islands of New Zealand. Trans. Roy. Soc. N.Z., 68, 544-569. Kneeland. 41853. On the tarso-metatarsal bone of Palapteryx. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 4, 298, 341. Lambrectit, K. 1933. Handbuch der Palaeornithologie. Berlin, Gebruder Borntraeger. 121-193. Lartet. 41862. Letter on moa-bones from Waingongoro to Sir J. Lubbock. Nat. Hist. Rev., Jmy, c Liversidge, A. 1881. An analysis of moa egg-shell. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 13, 225-7. . . . Lowe, P. R. 1928a. Studies and observations bearing on the phylogeny of the Ostrich and its a ics. ioc. oo . Soc. London, for 1928, 185-247. _ . . 1928b. Description of Atlantisia rogersi, the diminutive flightless rail of Inaccessible Island, wi r some notes on flightless rails. The Ibis (12), 4, 99-131. _ . p 1933. On the primitive characters of the penguins and their bearing on the phylogeny ot bir s. roc. Zool. Soc. London, pt. 2, 483-538. T, Ti:c 1935. On the relationship of the Struthiones to the Dinosaurs and the rest of the Avian class, ihe 1m (13), 5, 398-432. Lubbock, Sir J. 41862. Notes on coexistence of man with moa: see Lartet, 1862. Lydekker, R. 1891a. Catalogue of the Fossil Birds in the British Museum, 219-351. 106 1891b. On a new species of moa. Proc. Zool. Soc., London, for 1891, 479-482. fl892. The History of the Moa. Natural Science, 1, 588-595. 1894. Moa-article in Dictionary of Birds (Newton), part III, 575-582. 1895. The Royal Natural History, London, Frederick Warne & Co., vol. 4, p. 558. McDonnell, Lt. Col. T. 1889. The ancient moa-hunters at Waingongoro. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 21, 438-441. McKay, A. 1875. On the identity of the moa-hunters with the present Maori race. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 7, 98-105. 1879a. Occurrence of moa-bones at Taradale, near Napier. Rep. Geol. Explor. N.Z., 1878-9, 64-69. 1879b. The geology of the neighbourhood of Wellington. Rep. Geol. Explor. N.Z. 1878-9, 131-135. 1882. On a deposit of moa-bones near Motanau, North Canterbury. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 14, 410-414. McKay, Judge. Native Affairs of the South Island, vol. 1, p. 40. McLeod, H. N. 1902. On caves in the Martinborough district, and moa-bones found therein. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 34, 562-3. Mactier, A. 1878. Note on the discovery of moa-remains at Awhitu. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 10, 552. Mair, G. W. 1890. On the disappearance of the moa. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 22, 70-75. 1893. On the antiquity of the moa. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 25, 534-5. Malherbe, A. J1865. Sur le genre Dinornis. Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. 47-49. Maning, F. E. 1876. Extract from a letter . . . relative to the extinction of the moa. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 8, 102-3. , ' Mantell, G. A. 1847. Eggs of the moa or Dinornis of New Zealand. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (1), 20, 285. fl848a. Notices of the fossil bones of the ancient birds of New Zealand. Sillimans Jnl. 5, 431. 1848b. Discussion on paper by Owen (1848a). Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1848, part 16, 10-11. 1848c. On the fossil remains of birds collected in various parts of New Zealand by Mr. Walter Mantell, of Wellington. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. London, 4, 225-235. 1848d. Additional remarks on the geological position of the deposits in New Zealand which contain bones of birds. Ibid., 238-241. See also Presidential address XXXVI and XXXVII. 1850a. Notice of the discovery by Mr. Walter Mantell ... of a living specimen of the Notornis. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 209-214. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 4, 69-72. 1850b. Notice of the remains of the Dinornis and other birds . . . collected by Walter Mantell, Esq., in the Middle Island of New Zealand. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. London, 6, pt. 1, 319-343: also fSilliman’s Journ. 7, 28-44. 1851. Petrifactions and their Teachings. London, pp. 91-122. Mantell, G. A., and Deane, J. J1843. Correspondence on the ornithichnites of the Connecticut River sand¬ stone and the Dinornis of New Zealand. Silliman’s Jnl. 45, 177-188. Mantell, Hon. W. B. D. J1847. Eggs of the moa, or Dinornis, of New Zealand. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 20, 285 ; Amer. J. Sci. 1848, 134. 1848. re bones at Awamoa. Wellington Spectator; reprinted in McDonnell, 1889. T.N.Z.I. 21, 441. J1853. Notes from the south. N.Z. Spectator, Aug. 27, 1853. 1869. Address on “The Moa.” Trans. N.Z. Inst. 1, 18-19; (2nd edn. 1875, pp. 5-7). 1872. In discussion at meeting: finding of eggs. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 4, 364. 1873. On moa beds. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 5, 94-97. 1876a. Motion in Legislative Council asking for inquest on human remains found in Moa-bone Point Cave. N.Z. Hansard XIX, 546-548. 1876b. Notice of above. Nature, 13, 196. Mantell, R. N. J1850. On the probable age of the deposits containing the remains of the extinct colossal birds in New Zealand. Amer. Assoc. Proc. 252-4. Marshall, P. *1910. The glaciation of New Zealand. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 42, 334-348. 1919. Occurrence of fossil moa-bones in the lower Wanganui strata. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 51, 250-253. t*1922. The physical and palaeontological development of New Zealand. Congr. geol. internat. XIII, Bruxelles, pp. 160- *1927. Origin of Lake Waikaremoana. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 57, 237-244. Marwick, J. *1926. Origin of Tertiary mollusca of New Zealand. N.Z. Journ. Sci. Tech., 8, no. 5, 269-272. 1937. Mud-holes containing moa-bones at Lpokongaro. N.Z. Journ. Sci. Tech., 19, no. 5, 329-336. Maskell, W. M. 1885. Moas and moa-hunters. A review of M. de Quatrefage’s Paper. N.Z. Journ. Sci. 2, ’ 315-320. Matthew, W. D., and Granger, W. *1917. The skeleton of Diatryma, a gigantic bird from the lower Eocene of Wyoming. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist.. o7, 307-326. Meeson, J. 1890. The newly-opened cave near Sumner. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 22, 64-70. Merten's, A. f 1900. Die Moas in Naturwissenschaftlichen Museum zu Magdeburg. Jahresber. u. Abhandl. Naturw. Ver. Madgeburg, 1898-1900, 153-174. Meyer, A. B. 1903. On the Eggs of the Moa. Ibis (8), 3, 188. Milne-Edwards, A. J1885. L’histoire naturelle de File Campbell et de la Nouvelle Zelande. C.R. Acad. Sci. 101, no. 18. 101 -1-1895. Sur le resemblance qui existent entre la Faune des Isles Mascareignes et celle de certaines lies de 1-Ocean Pacifique Australe. Ann. Nat. Sen (8) 1, • North Island of New Zealand. Moore, J. M. f 1889. On Dinornis bones from the Abbey Ca\es, W g M_, TJVxZ So:Cm~’air0Trans. N.Z Inst 4 ” °" ^ 4“’ 1 C 21 or^e- Katiies and Penguins. Proc. Linn. NATHUsius,°w!^etl870,.r^Uebe'r ^die^^Struktur der Moa-Eischalen » Neuseeland »d die Bedeutung der t18nS"t Ei^ vont^nis, Dtaorni, A^yx and Crypturiden. 21 330 335. Newm.« K 1 1862. Notes on the possible existence of a huge bird a bed to the moa. Zc.olog.st, 784s. tl864a. Struthionoidous birds, extinct and recent. Zoologist, 9188-9190. fl864b. An account of the moa remains exhibited by Mr. A is. oo g , \ml Accoum'of18!8; discovery and ultimate sale at Stevens Rooms of the moa's egg from Kaikoura. Newton, A.°°' +1*875. ^Article : Birds. Encyc. Brit. 9th ed. 3, 731. Di»°™is-7’ ^ 2Q 4gg +1887 On the nomenclature of the group of Ratitae. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (4), 2U, 4W. Newton, E T .1885. On the remains of a gigantic species of bird from Lower Eocene beds near Croydon. Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1885, 445. , 00-2 Nopcsa, F. 1907. Ideas on the origin of flight. Proc. Zool. Soc London 223- 36. 1923 On the origin of flight in birds. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 463-477. 4 O'Brien, P J. *1940. Some observations on the . . . White-flippered Penguin. Rec. Canterbury Mus., no. Oliver, W .' R. B. 1925. The biogeographical relations of the New Zealand Region. Journ. Linn. Soc. London, Bot., 47. A /VT V A T 4. 1 1930. New Zealand Birds, Wellington, N.Z., Fine Arts (N.Z.) Ltd *1931. An ancient Maori oven on Mt. Egmont. Journ. Polynesian Soc., 40, 73-80. Ongley, M. *1932. Waikaremoana. N.Z. Journ. Sci. Tech. 14, 173-184. Osborn H. F. *1910. The Age of Mammals. New York, Macmillan Co. . f Owen R *1838. “Palaeontological Appendix” (p. 32) to Mitchell, Three Expeditions o re n eno ’ Eastern Australia, vol. ii. First notice of remains subsequently (1873) named ansi • 1840. Exhibited bone of unknown struthious bird from New Zealand. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 184239’ Notice of a fragment of the femur of a gigantic bird of New Zealand. Trans. Zool. Soc. London, _ 1 ?9 33 1843a. Letter from Rev. W. C. Cotton on birds sent by Rev. W. Williams to Dr. Buckland. Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1843, pt. II, p. L , c 9 1843b. Notice of Lecture at Cork. Rep. Brit. Assoc, xxviii. Illustrated London News, Aug. 26, Sept. 2, 1843c. Proceedings of meeting : contains original proposal of Dinornis novae-sealandiae. Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1843, no. 120, 8-10. # c . 12„ 1843d. Letter proposing to substitute the name Dinornis for Megalorms. Proc. Zool. Soc. tor 1643, no. 120, 19. 1843e. “Professor Owen exhibited various bones ... of a gigantic struthious bird (Dinornis novae-sea¬ landiae Owen) Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 12, no. 79, 444-6. 1844a. Proceedings of meeting: paper read on bones collected by Rev. W. Williams. Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1843, pt. II’, no. 129, 144-5. _ . 1844b. On Dinornis, an extinct genus of tridactyle struthious birds, with descriptions of portions ot the skeleton of five species which formerly existed in New Zealand. Trans. Zool. Soc. London, 3, pt. 3, 235-275. J1845. On Dinornis in New Zealand. Amer. Journ. Sci. 48, 61-62, 194-201. 1846a. Proceedings of meeting : memoir read on various remains. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, for 1846, pt. 14, 46-49. tl846b. On the extinct mammals of Australia, with additional observations on the genus Dinornis of New Zealand. Silliman’s Jnl. 1, 129-130. 1846c. On Dinornis (Part II), containing descriptions of portions of the skull, the sternum and other parts of the skeleton of the species previously determined, with osteological evidences of three addi¬ tional species, and of a new genus, Palaptcry. r. Trans. Zool. Soc. London, 3, pt. 4, 307-329. fl846d. On Dinornis in New Zealand. Jahrb. f. Min. 768. 1848a. On the remains of the gigantic and presumed extinct wingless or terrestrial birds of New Zealand (Dinornis and Palapteryx) with indications of two other genera (Notornis and Nestor). Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1848, pt. 16, 1-10. 108 1848b. On Dinonus (Part III) : containing a description of the skull and beak of that genus, and of the same characteristic parts of Palapteryx, and of two other genera of birds, Notornis and Nestor; form¬ ing part of an extensive series of ornithic remains discovered by Mr. Walter Mantell at Waingongoro, North Island of New Zealand. Trans. Zool. Soc. London, 3, pt. 5, 345-378. 1850. Proceedings of meeting: memoir on gigantic wingless birds of New Zealand communicated. Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1850, pt. 18, 45. 1851a. On Dinornis (Part IV) : containing the restoration of the feet of that genus and of Palapteryx, with a description of the sternum in Palapteryx and Aptornis. Trans. Zool. Soc. London, 4, pt. 1, 1-20. 1851b. Proceedings of meeting: paper read on cranium of D. gigantens and inyciis. Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1850, pt. 20, 208. 1852. On Dinornis (Part V) : containing a description of the skull and beak of a large species of Dinornis, of the cranium of an immature specimen of Dinornis gigantcus (?) and of crania of species of Palapteryx. Trans. Zool. Soc. London, 4, pt. 2, 59-68. 1855. On the bones of the leg of Dinornis (Palapteryx) struthioides and the Palapteryx gracilis. Proc. Zool. Soc., London, for 1854, pt. 22, 244-8. 1856a. On Dinornis (Part VI) : containing a description of the bones of the leg of Dinornis (Palapteryx) struthioides and of Dinornis gracilis, Owen. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 4, pt. 4, 141-147. |1856b. Dromornis australis. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. 12, p. 111. *f 1856c. On Gastornis. Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. 12, 210. 1856d. On Dinornis (Part VII) : containing a description of the bones of the leg and foot of the Dinornis clephantopus, Owen. Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1856, pt. 24, 54-61. 1858a. On Dinornis (Part VII.) : containing a description of the bones of the leg and foot of Dinornis clephantopus, Owen. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 4, pt. 5, 149-158. 1858b. On Dinornis (Part VIII) : containing a description of the skeleton of Dinornis clephantopus, Owen. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 4, pt. 5, 159-164. 1864. Proceedings of meeting: paper read on skull, atlas and scapulo-coracoid of D. robustus. Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1864, no. 41, 648-649. 1866a. On Dinornis (Part IX) : containing a description of the skuH, atlas, and scapulo-coracoid bone of the Dinornis robustus, Owen. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 5, pt. 5, 337-358. 1866b. On Dinornis (Part X) : containing a description of a skeleton of a flightless bird indicative of a new genus and species (Cneiniornis calcitrans, Owen). Contains references to “Dinornis geranoidcs,” really to Eu. cxilis and Eu. curtus (pp. 400-402). Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 5, pt. 5, 395-404. 1867. Proceedings of meeting: two papers presented (i) D. robustus; (ii) D. maximus. Proc. Zool. Soc., London, for 1867, no. 57, 891. 1868. Proceedings of meeting: papers on D. clephantopus, rheidcs, crassus, casuarimis. Proc. Zool. Soc., London, for 1868, no. 26, 404. j '&* ■ ■ 1869a. On Dinornis (Part XI) : containing a description of the integument of the sole, and tendons of a toe, of the foot of Dinornis robustus, Owen. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 6, part 8, 495-6. 1869b. On Dinornis (Part XII) : containing a description of the femur, tibia, and metatarsus of Dinornis maximus, Owen. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 6, pt. 8, 497-500. 1869c. Proceedings of meeting: paper read on craniology of Dinornis. Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1869, no. 4, 59. 1870a. On Dinornis (Part XIII) : containing a description of the sternum in Dinornis clephantopus and D. rheidcs, with notes on that bone in D. crassus and D. casuarinus. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 7, pt. 2, 115-122. 1870b. On Dinornis (Part XIV) : containing contributions to the craniology of the genus, with descrip¬ tions of the fossil cranium of Dasornis londiucnsis, Ow., from the London Clay of Sheppey. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 7, pt. 2, 123-150. 1870c. Notes on a letter from Dr. J. Haast (Haast, 1870). Proc. Zool. Soc., London, for 1870, no. 4, 56-7. 1870d. Preliminary notice on a paper, to contain (inter alia) description of D. curtus. Proc. Zool. Soc., London, for 1870, no. 8, 128. 1871a. On Dinornis (Part XV) : containing a description of the skull, femur, tibia, fibula, and metatarsus of Aptornis dejossor, Owen, from near Oarnaru, Middle Island, New Zealand; with additional observa¬ tions on Aptornis otidiforniis, on Notornis mantelli, and on Dinornis curtus. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 7, pt. 5, 353-380. _ . *18710. On Dinornis (Part XVI) : containing notices of the internal organs of some species, with a description of the brain and some nerves and muscles of the head of the Apteryx australis. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 7, pt. 5, 381-396. 1871c. Preliminary notice of 17th memoir on Dinornis. Proc. Zool. Soc. London for 1871, no. 32, 506. 1872a. Preliminary notice of 18th memoir to include proposal of D. gravis. Proc. Zool. Soc., London, for 1872, no. 38, 605. 109 * 1872b. Preliminary notice of 19th memoir (on Dromornis australis). Proc. Zool. Soc., London, for 1872, no. 43, 682. . . , . , , *1872c. On Dinornis (Part XVII) : containing a description of the sternum and pelvis, with an attemp e restoration of Aptornis defossor. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 8, pt. 3, 119-126. 1873a. On Dinornis (Part XVIII) : containing a description of the pelvis and bones of the leg o inotms gravis. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 8, pt. 6, 361-380. *1873b. On Dinornis (Part XIX) : containing a description of a femur indicative of a new genus o arge wingless bird (Dromornis australis Owen) from a post-tertiary deposit in Queensland, Austra la. rant,. Zool. Soc., London, 8, pt. 6, 381-384. , 1875a. Note on a new locality of Dinornithidae (Hamilton swamp). Proc. Zool. Soc., on on, 101 1875, no. 6, 88. , , 1Q~- 1875b. Preliminary notice of 22nd memoir (on D. maximus). Proc. Zool. Soc., London, tor Ib/P, no. *1875c. On Dinornis (Part XX): really on Cnemiornis. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 9, 2o3. ^ 1877. On Dinornis (Part XXI) : containing a restoration of the skeleton of Dinornis maximus, wen. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 10, pt. 3, 147-186. On Dinornis (Part XXII) was apparently never published. 1879. “Memoirs of the Extinct Wingless Birds of New Zealand, etc.” London, John van "Voorst, 2 vo s 1882a. Proceedings of meeting: notice of 23rd memoir: D. parvus, nom. nud. Proc. Zool. Soc. for 18o2 1882b. Proceedings of meeting: notice of 24th memoir: D. didinus, nom. nud. Proc. Zool. Soc., London, for 1882, no. 36, 549. . 1883a. On Dinornis (Part XXIII) : containing a description of the skeleton of Dinorms parvus, Uwen. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 11, pt. 8, 2o3-261. _ .... 1883b. On Dinornis (Part XXIV) : containing a description of the head and feet, with their dried integu¬ ments, of an individual of the species Dinornis didinus, Owen. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 11, pt. 8, 1884. Preliminary notice of 25th memoir. Proc. Zool. Soc., London, for 1884, no. 12, 176. 1886. On Dinornis (Part XXV) : containing a description of the sternum of Dinornis elephantopus. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 12, pt. 1, 1-3. Parker, T. J. 1889. Bone (of ‘‘D. casuarinus”) exhibited. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 21, 523. *1892. Observation on the anatomy and development of Apteryx. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., London, B. 182, 25-134. 1893a. Abstract of forthcoming memoir. Proc. Zool. Soc., London, for 1893, 170. 1893b. On the classification and mutual relations of the Dinornithidae. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 25, 1-3. Nature, Mar. 2, 431. 1893c. On the presence of a crest of feathers in certain species of moa. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 25, 3-6. 1893d. Additional note on feather crests in the moa. Ibid., 559. 1894. Notes on three moa-skulls, probably referable to the genus Pachyornis. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 26, 223-5. 1895a. Exhibited leg of a moa (Megalapteryx) from Old Man Range, with skin, muscles, tendons and feathers. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 27, 684. 1895b. On the cranial osteology, classification and phylogeny of the Dinornithidae. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 13, pt. 11, 373-431. Parker, W. K. *1864. On the sternal apparatus in birds. Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1864, no. 22, 340. 1866. On the struthious skull. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., 1866, 163-170. *1868. Structure and development of the shoulder-girdle and sternum in the vertebrates. Ray Society, London. Peschard, A. J1895. Le Moa et son extermination par l’homme. C.R. Ass., France. Adv. Sci. 20, 675. Plant, J. J1877. Footprints of Dinornis. Bone of Dinornis and Dodo. Proc. Lit. and Phil. Soc., Manchester, 16, 181-2. Polack, J. S. 1838. New Zealand I, 303, 307, 308. Potts, T. H. 1878. Note from New Zealand (Moa), Nature, 19, 21. 1882. Out in the Open. Christchurch, p. 20. Powell, A. W. B. *1931. Waitotaran faunules of the Wanganui system. Rec. Auck. Inst. Mus., 1, no. 2, 85-112. *1933. Two new land snails from New Zealand. Proc. Malac. Soc. 20, pt. 4, 192. Powell, A. W. B., and Bartrum, J. A. *1929. The Tertiary (Waitematan) molluscan fauna of Oneroa, Wai- heke Island. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 60, 308-365. Purnell, C. W. J1880. The Maori and the Moa. Victorian Review. 1, 570-586. Pycraft, W. P. 1898. Osteology of birds. Proc. Zool. Soc., London, for 1898. 1900. Dissertation on the morphology and phylogeny of the Palaeognathae and Neognathae. Trans. Zool. Soc., London, 15, 149-290. 110 1912. Wingless Birds. Marvels of the Universe, 636-642. Pyke, Y. 1890. The Moa (Dinorms) and the probable cause of its Extinction. Wellington, The Evening Post, pp. 1-8. Ranson, J. fl863. The Moa, Zoologist, 8560. Reichenbach, L. 1852 (probably). Nat. Syst. Vogel, p. xxx. Reischek, A. y 1890. Nichtfliegende Vogel in Neuseeland. Mitt. Ornith. Ver. Wien, 322, 328. Reynolds, A. 1894. Note in Otago Witness, Jan. 11, on moa-bones found in Maori dwelling site : (quoted by Teviotdale, 1939, 170). Roberts, W. H. S. 1875. Notes on the moa. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 7, 548-9. Robson, C. H. 1876. Notes on moa remains in the vicinity of Cape Campbell. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 8, 95-7. Discussion, p. 413. 1877. Further notes on moa remains. Ibid., 9, 279-280. Rothschild, W. 1907. “Extinct Birds.” London, Hutchinson & Co. f 1911. On the former and present distribution of the so-called Ratitae or Ostrich-like birds, with certain deductions, and a description of a new form by C. W. Andrews. Ber. 5 Internat. Ornith. Kongr. Berlin, 1910, 144-174 and 1000. Rowley, G. D. 1878. Remarks on the extinct gigantic birds of Madagascar and New Zealand. Ornith. Misc. 3, 237-247. Rule, J. 1843. Cites tradition of giant eagle or movie. Polytechnic. Jnl. July, 1843. Russell, G. C. f 1877. The giant birds of New Zealand. Amer. Nat. 11, 11-21. Rutland, J. 1893. Did the Maori know the moa? Journ. Polynes. Soc. 2, no. 3, 156. Scott, H. H. 1932. The extinct Tasmanian Emu. Pap. Roy. Soc., Tas., 1931, 108-110. Skinner, H. D. 1923. Archaeology of Canterbury, I, Moa-bone Point Cave. Rec. Canterbury Mus., 2, no. 3, 93-104. 1924a. Archaeology of Canterbury, II. Monck’s Cave. Ibid., 2, no. 4, 151-162. 1924b. Results of the excavations at the Shag River sand-hills. Journ. Polynes. Soc., 33, 11-24. Skottsberc, C. *1915. Notes on the relations between the floras of Subantarctic America and New Zealand. Plant World, 18, no. 5, 129-142. *1934. Studies in the genus Astelia. Kungl. Svenska Vetenskapsakad. Handl. (3), 14, no. 2, 1-106. *1935. Phytogeography of conifers of western South America. Fifth Pacific Science Congress, 3265-6. Smith, C. H. 1884. Notes as to the position of moa-bones in New Zealand. Geol. Mag., (3), 1, 129-131. Smith, S. P. 1907. History and tradition of the Taranaki coast. Journ. Polynes. Soc., 16, 137. Smith, W. W. 1884. On Moa and other remains from the Tengawai River, Canterbury, N.Z. Journ. Sci. 2, no. 6, 293-5. 1891. On the occurrence of moa and other remains at Albury. N.Z. Journ. Sci. (new issue), 1, no. 5, 191-8. 1910. Occurrences of moa-bones in forests. Journ. Polynes. Soc., 19, 222. Speight, R. 1911. The post-glacial climate of Canterbury. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 43, 408-420. 1917. An ancient buried forest near Riccarton. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 49, 361-364. Spencer, G. S. J1867. Dinornis sp. (?). Remains found at Waingongoro have undergone the process of cook¬ ing. The Zoologist, 638. Stack, J. W. 1872. Some observations on the annual address of the President of the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 4, 107-110. 1875. Notes on the word “Moa” in the poetry of the New Zealanders. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 7, XXVIII- XXIX. Stimson. tl851. On some moa-bones. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 240. Stevens, S. 1865. On a perfect egg of Dinornis. Proc. Zool. Soc., London, for 1865, no. 40, 617. S.S. (Stevens, S.) J1865a. Particulars of the finding of the moa-egg. Zoologist, 34. f 1865b. Discovery of fossil remains of a gigantic bird in New Zealand (“probably reptilian”— A. Hamil¬ ton). Zoologist, 97. Taylor, Rev. R. 1846. Letter (written 14/2/1844) to Sir Everard Home, printed in Owen, 1846c, 327. 1850. Note to a paper on the Geology of New Zealand. (Meurant’s moa of 1823.) N.Z. Magazine, I, no. 2, 107. 1855. New Zealand and Its Inhabitants, p. 396. 1862. The Geology of New Zealand. Chapman’s New Zealand Magazine, 1, no. 4, 181. 1870. Te Ika a Maui. 417-9. pp. see Index “Moa.” 1873. An account of the first discovery of moa remains. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 5, 97-101. Tegetmf.ier. J1901. Tracheal rings and feathers of Dinornis. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club, 11, 56. Teviotdale, D. 1924. Excavations near the mouth of the Shag River, Otago. Journ. Polynes. Soc., 33, 3-10. 1932. The Material Culture of the Moa-hunters in Murihiku. Journ. Polynes. Soc., 41, 81-120. 1937. Progress report on the excavation of a moa-hunter’s camp at the mouth of the Tahakopa River. Journ. Polynes. Soc., 46, 134-153. Ill 1938a. Further excavations at the moa-hunter’s camp at Papatowai Polynes. Soc., 47, 27-37. 1938b. Final report on the excavation of a moa-hunter camp at (i.e. Tahakopa River, above). Journ. the mouth of the Tahakopa River. 1939. Excavation of a moa-hunter’s camp near the mouth of the Waitaki River. Journ. Polynes. Soc., 48, 167-185. , , , , , Thomson, A. S. +18S4. Description of two caves in the North Island containing bones of the moa. Edinburgh New Philos. Journ. 46, 268-295. 1859. The Story of New Zealand. 1. 31. . Thomson, J. R. 1858. Notice of moa-bones in a report on the northern and interior districts of Otago. Otag Witness, Jan. 31. Thorne, G. 1876. Notes on the discovery of moa and moa-hunter’s remains at Pataua iver, near langarei. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 8, 83-94. . , . . , Travers, W. T. L. 1876. Notes on the extinction of the moa, with a review of the d>5Cuss,0"s 011 the sllbjec published in the Transactions of the New Zealand Institute. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 8, 58- . 1878. Anniversary Address to Wellington Phil. Soc. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 10, 539-544. Tregear, E. 1888. The Maoris and the Moa. Journ. Anthr. Inst., 17, 292-304.. 1893. The extinction of the moa. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 25, 413-426; discussion pp. 530-53-. 1895. Myths of observation. Trans. N.Z. Inst. 27, 585, 590. Trouessart, E. L. J1884. Le Moas ou oiseaux geants de la Nouvelle Zelande. Revue. Sci. Paris (3), 34, 114-115. Tuckett, F. f 1886. Colossal bird ( Dinovnis ) . Zoologist, 97. Wakefield, E. 1889. New Zealand after Fifty Years. Cassell and Co. (Moa, pp. 73-76, 105-109.) Ward, E. 1873. Original bones of D. maximus exhibited. Proc. Zool. Soc., London, no. 14, 210. Waterhouse, G. R. J1844. Notes on the occurrence of the bones of enormous birds allied to the ostrich in New Zealand. Zoologist, London, 454-5. _ . . Watkin, Rev. J. (Edited by Pratt, Rev. R.). 11841,1931. Articles in Evening Star (Dunedin), comprising diary of Rev. J. Watkin, with Maori tradition of the moa. Webber, H. J1863. Reported discovery of the moa. Zoologist, 8559. Weetman, S. 1887. Notes on some moa remains found at the Great Barrier Island during February, 1886 Trans. N.Z. Inst., 19, 193-4. Weld, F. A. J1860. Dinornis egg. Edinburgh New Philosoph. Journ., 11, 164. Wells, H. G., Huxley, J. S., and Wells, G. P. *1938. The Science of Life, pop. ed., Cassell & Co. Whatofioro, H. T. 1911. The Maori and the moa. Journ. Polynes. Soc., 20, 54-59. White, J. 1887. Ancient History of the Maori. 6 vols. 1925. The moa in Maori tradition. Journ. Polynes. Soc., 34, 170-174. White, T. 1876. Notes on moa caves, etc., in the Wakatipu district. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 8, 97-102. 1886. Remarks on the feathers of two species of moa. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 18, 83. 1893. On remains of the moa in the forest. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 25, 504-5. 1895. On the bird moa and its aliases. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 27, 262-273. 1897. On the Poua and other extinct birds of the Chatham Islands. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 29, 162-168. 1900a. Moa and Toa— the bird and the tree. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 32, 344-7. 1900b. Have we the remains of a swimming swan-like moa? Trans. N.Z. Inst., 32, 339-344. 1905. On the word moa. Jounr. Polynes. Soc., 14, 102. Wilckens, O. f 1909. Die geologische, palaeontologische und petrographische Literature uber Neuseeland bis zum Jahre 1907. Neues Jahrb. min. II, 265-301, 433-464. J1917. Die Geologie von Neuseeland. Geol. Riendschau. 8, 143 ff. Williams, W. L. 1872. On the occurrence of footprints of a large bird found at Turanganui, Poverty Bay. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 4, 124-7. Wilmot. 1885. Discovery of skeleton in Garvie Mountains. N.Z. Journ. Sci., 2, no. 8, 394. Wilson, J. A. J1894. Sketches of ancient Maori Life and History. (Reprinted from Auckland Star.) Wilson' K. 1913. Footprints of the moa. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 45, 211 ; also note by W. B. Benham. Wohlers, Rev. J. F. H. 1875. The Mythology and traditions of the Maori in New Zealand. Part I. Trans. N.Z. Inst., 7, 3-30. 1876. Part II, Ibid., 8, 108-123. Wolterstorff, W. J1900. Uber ausgestorbene Riesenvogel. Stuttgait, 20 pp. Wonfor, T. W. fl875. On wingless birds. 22nd Rep. Brighton Nat. Hist. Soc., 49-52. Woodward, A. S. tl904. A guide to the fossil mammals and birds in the Department of Geology and Palaeon¬ tology in the British Museum (Natural History), London. Woodward, H. 1885a. On wingless birds, fossil and recent, and a few words on birds as a class. Geol. Mag. (3), 2, 308-318; fZoologist, 226-7. |1885b. On flightless birds, commonly called wingless birds, fossil and recent, and a few more words on birds as a class. Proc. Geol. Assoc., London, 352-376. 112 INDEX Note: Names of genera and species of moa are followed, in brackets, by the name adopted in this study. References to the names of leading students (i.e. Owen, Hutton, Haast, etc.) do not include the many details in synonymy and descriptions of species. A Acknowledgments, 5. Advent of moa, 86-89. Allan, R. S., 6; selection of types, 8; question submitted to International Commission Nomenclature, 8, 63. altus ( Dinornis maximus), 72. Andersen, J. C., discovery of moa egg, 75. Andreevs, C. W., scapulo-coracoid, M. didinus, 35; height of D. maximus, 73; skull of Aepyornis, 87. Anomalopteryx, 14. Anomalornis (Anomalopteryx), 14; A. gracilis (M. didinus ), 30. Antarctica, means of distribution of ratites, 88, 89. antiquus (Anomalopteryx antiquus), 29. Antrum, maxillary, 42. Archaeopteryx, 82. Archey, G., remains at Amodeo Bay, 91; remains at Karamu, 41 ; eggs at Doubt¬ less Bay, 74. Atlantisia rogersi, primitive or degenerate feathers, 85. Auckland Museum, types of M. benhami, 35; of P. mappini, 41; of P. oweni, 44; of D. torosus, 70; collection of egg-shell, 74. Awamoa, dune deposit, 73. B Bartrum, J. A., warm Miocene climate, 89. Bate, Miss Dorothea M. A., 6; type of D. gravis, 55. Beak, form of, 9, 42, 77. Beattie, H,, Maori knowledge of moa, 96. Beebe, W., Tetrapteryx pro-avian, 82. Benham, Sir W., 6; skeleton from Waka- patu, 53; remains on Stewart Island, 54; egg in Otago Museum, 74; palaeo- geographical distribution, 88 ; foot¬ prints, 89. benhami (Megalapteryx benhami), 35. Benson, W. N., land extension in N.Z., 89. Best, E., Maori knowledge of moa, 96. Bibliography, 101. Bones, size and proportion, 10, 16. Booth, B. S., Hamilton Swamp excava¬ tions, 90. boothi (Enry apteryx gravis), 54. Buick, T. L., species recognized, 76. Buller, W. L., type of D. maximus, 72; sup¬ posed moa-feather head-dress, 95. Burdett-Coutts, Baroness A., type of Eu. gravis, 55. 113 c Caeca, intestinal, 87. Canterbury Museum, 5; type (cast) of A. didiformis, 18; Pyramid Valley de¬ posit, 47, 79; skeleton of M. didinus from Inangahua, 33; P. elephant opus from Pyramid Valley, 39; egg of Em. crassus, 79. Cariama , 83. Cassowary, species of, 79. Casuariiformes, origin and relationships of, 88. casuarinus ( Emeus crassus), 46. Ccla (Euryapteryx curtus), 53. Chandler, A. C., feathers, 85. Chatham Is., absence of moa, 89. Chilton, C., palaeo-geographical distribu¬ tion, 88. Classification, criteria for, 8, 9, 11, 12 ; out¬ line of, 11, 12, 76 ; diagnoses of families and genera, 76-78. Climate : factor in development of species, 81, 89-92; post glacial pluvial, 91; North and South Is., 92. Cockayne, L., palaeo-geographical distri¬ bution, 88. Coelurosaurs, 83. Colenso, Rev. W., Maori tradition of moa, 95. compacta (Emeus huttonii) , 52. Cook Strait, not factor in separation of species, 79-80. Copeland, E. B., distribution of ferns, 88. Coromandel, dune and midden deposits, 92, 93. Cranwell, Miss L. M., distinction between Fagus and Nothofagus, 88 ; post-glacial climate, 91 ; matai seeds as food, 91. crassus (Emeus crassus), 46-51. Crypturi, origin and relationships, 88. curtus (Euryapteryx curtus), 60. D Davenport, C. B., feathers, 84. Davies, G. H. (and Pope, J. H.), Maori poem on moa, 96. Deeming, A. B., remains at Doubtless Bay, 5; discovery of egg, 75. Development, parallel or convergent in moa, 10. Diatryma, 83. didiformis ( Anomalopteryx didiformis) , 14-29. didinus (Megalapteryx didinus), 30-35. Dinornis, 61; D. novae-zcalandiae, 6, 8, 64, ingens, 68; giganteus, 69; torosus, 70; robustus, 71; maximus, 72. Distribution: of moa, 80; of ratites, 86-89, of Southern fauna and flora, 88. Dominion Museum, skeleton of A. didi¬ formis from Takaka, 22 ; specimen of M. didinus from Takaka, 33. Doubtless Bay, dune and midden deposits distinguished, 93. Downes, T. W., legend of moa, 95. dromacoides (Anomalopteryx didiformis) , 14; type, 18. Dromiceius, relationships, 86. Dusen, P., Seymour Island plants, 88. E Earland, A., Antarctic land bridge, 88. Eggs, 73-75, 90 ; shell drilled, 94. elegans, Palaeocasuarius (Megalapteryx didi¬ nus), 30. elephant opus (Pachyornis elephant opus) , 36- 39. Emeus, 45; Em. crassus, 46; huttonii, 50. Emu, size range, 79. Enfield, swamp deposit, 90. Euparkia, 83. European times, moa survival?, 92. Euryapteryx , 53; Eu. gravis, 54; geranoides, 57 ; exilis, 57 ; curtus, 60. Evans, W. P., Agathis in South Is., 88. Ewart, J. C., feathers, 85. excelsus (Dinornis giganteus), 69. exilis (Euryapteryx exilis), 57-60; cf. Pachy¬ ornis mappini, 41. ex punctus (Euryapteryx geranoides) , 57. Extinction, causes of, 89-91 ; time of, 92-97. 114 H Falla, R. A., 6; distinction of species of Kiwi and of Moa, 12. Feathers, 75. Field, H. C., supposed moa-feather head¬ dress, 95. firmus ( Dinornis ingens), 68. Flight, origin of, 82; of ancestral ratite, 83, 85. Floods, destruction by, 91. Florin, R., southern distribution of coni¬ fers, 88. Forbes, H. 0., 5; Monck’s Cave, 94; A. antiqnus, 29. Forest, extension limiting moa, 91. fortis (Anomalopteryx didiformis) , 15. Foweraker, C. E., stomach contents of moa, 91. Frost, E. T., 5 ; Doubtless Bay deposits, 93. G geranoides, Cela ( P achy amis mappini), 41. geranoides (Euryapteryx geranoides), 57; for Bit. exilis, 57. giganteus (Dinornis giganteus), 69-70. Gizzard-stones, occurrence of, 91. Glaciation, 90. Glenmark, swamp deposit, 90, 91. gracilis (Dinornis ingens), 68. gracilis, Anomalornis (Meg. didinus), 30. Graham, G., legend of moa, 96 ; Grange, L. I., volcanic ash showers, 96. Grant, J., measurements of bones, 6. gravis (Euryapteryx gravis), 54-56; type specimen, 54, 55. gravipes (Euryapteryx gravis), 54. Gregory, W. H., discovery of moa remains, 5. Gregory, W. K., origin of ratites, 83. Grey, Sir G., Maori midden deposits, 93, 94 ; Maori traditions of moa, 95. Haast, J., 5 ; beak form, 9 ; moa remains in Maori camp sites, 92, 94; Maori tradi¬ tions of moa, 95; post-glacial deposits, 90; authority for name maximus, 72; Megalapteryx hectori, 30; Pachyornis oweni, 44. haasti (Euryapteryx gravis), 54. haast i, Palaeocasuarius (Megalapteryx didi¬ nus), 30. Habits, of ratites, 85. Hamilton, A., Te Aute swamp, 90; rock- shelter deposits, 92 ; bibliography of moa, 101; moa feathers on Maori cloak, 75; Eu. gravis in Southland, 54. Hamilton, South Is., swamp deposits, 53; present name Orangapai, 90. hamiltoni (Megalapteryx didinus), 30. Harpagornis, scavenging moa remains, 91. Hawks, scavenging moa remains, 91. Head-dress, supposed moa-feathers, 95. Hector, J., 5; moa tracks in bush, 91; egg from Cromwell, 74; egg from Kaikoura, 75; inland moa-hunters, 92; skin of moa, 75. hectori ( Megalapteryx didinus), 30. Hedley, C., palaeo-geographical distribu¬ tion, 88. Heilmann, G., origin of birds, 82 ; reptilian episternum, 83. Hesperornis, 83. Pieter at ocha (N.Z. huia), 10. Hill, H., dune and midden deposits distin¬ guished, 93. Hunting moa, methods, 95. Hutton, F. W., 5, 7; Em. huttonii, 52; P . major, 37; advent of moa, 86; relation¬ ships of ratites, 86, 88; size of sexes, 19 ; area of development, 89, 90 ; classi¬ fication, 76, 77 ; surface finds, 97 ; Shag Point deposits, 92 ; Maori tradition, 96, 97; cause of continuous variation, 80; evolution of species, 80; structure of eggshell, 73 ; vertebrae, 24, 26 ; feathers, 75. huttonii (Emeus huttonii), 52. Huxley, J. S., orthogenesis, 80. 115 I immanis ( Pachyornis elephant opus) 37. inhabilis ( Pachyornis elephantopus) , 36. ingens (Dinornis ingens ), 68-69. J Jenkins, H. R., remains at Doubtless Bay, 5. Jordan, Dr., 6. K Kakanui R., bones found, Eu. gravis , 55. Kapua, swamp deposit, 90. kuranui ( Bury apteryx gravis ), 54. L Lambrecht, K., classification, 76; biblio¬ graphy, 101. Lakes, skeletons on old margins, 91. Leg-bones, size of, 10, 16 ; form of, 38, 58, 65 ; relative lengths of femur, tibia and metatarsus, 10. Lowe, P. R., phylogeny of struthiones, 82-85. Lydekker, R., 5; types and material studied, 7 ; beak form in classification, 9; classification, 76; size of ostrich, 79. M McDonnell, T., Maori tradition, 95. McKay, A., dune and midden deposits dis¬ tinguished, 93, 94. Madras Museum, types of D. maximus, 72. Mair, G. W., tradition in native land court records, 95. major (Pachyornis elephantopus) , 36, 37. major : var. of crassus (P. elephantopus , or Eu. gravis), 37. Makirikiri, swamp deposit, 6. Maning, F. E., Maori tradition, 95. Mantell, G. A., reports of discoveries by W. B. D. Mantell, 90. Mantell, W. B., swamp deposits, 90 ; Maori midden deposits, 92, 94; Maori know¬ ledge of moa, 96; restoration of eggs, 73. Maori, hunting moa, 92-94 ; tradition of moa, 94-96; influenced by European ideas of moa, 95; settlement of N.Z., 97; extermination of moa, 97. Mappin, F. C., collecting expeditions, 5 , skeleton from Mangaotaki, 41. / nappini (Pachyornis mappini), 41-44. Marshall, P., formation of L. Waikare- moana, 18 ; moa in mid-Pliocene, 89 , glacial period, 90. Marsupial distribution, 89. Marwick, J., Antarctic element in N.Z. molluscan fauna, 89. Mason, Miss R., stomach contents of moa, 91. Matthew (and Granger), on Diatryma, 83. Maxillo-nasal, 19, 32, 42, 48, 56, 87. maximus (Dinornis maximus), 72-73; types of, 72; authority for name, 72. Measuring, method, 14. Meeson, A., Monck’s Cave, 94. M egalapteryx, 29; M. didinus, 30; M. ben- ha/mi, 35. Megalornis, first name proposed for moa, 61. Meionornis (Emeus), 45; M. didinus (Em. kuttonii), 30, 52. Mesopteryx (Emeus), 45. Michael, Major J., types of D. maximus , 72. Moa (Dinornis) , 61. Moa, Polynesian word for fowl, 95. Moa-bone Point cave deposits, 94. Moa-hunters, 92-94. Monck’s Cave, moa and Maori remains, 94. Mountain axis as barrier to distribution, 80. Movia (Dinornis) , 61. Munson, W. D., surface deposits, 91 ; rock shelter deposits, 92; eggs for food, 97. Murphy, W. K., origin of ratites, 83. Museum, British, 7 ; Royal College of Surgeons, 7 ; Canterbury, 90. 116 N Nelson Museum, types of P. pygmaeus, 41. Nomenclature, rules, 7; International Commission, 8, 63. Nopcsa, F., origin of flight, 82. novae-sealandiae ( Di norms novae-sealandiae) , 64-68; type, 63. 0 Oliver, W. R. B., classification, 8, 9, 11, 76; on P. rothschildi, 38; on type of D. huttonii, 52; advent of moa, 88; distri¬ bution of southern flora and fauna, 88, 89; evolution of species of moa, 80; volcanic ash showers, 96. Orbital process of lachrymal, 87. Origin of ratites, Northern or Southern Hemisphere, 86-88. Ornitholestes , 83. Ornithosuchus, 83. Orthogenesis, 80. Osborn, H. F., palaeo-geographical distri¬ bution, 88. Ostrich, size range, 79; Tertiary, 83. Otago Museum, skulls in, 10. Owen, Sir R., first notice of moa, 5; material studied, 7 ; nomination of types, 8 ; diagnostic characters, 8 ; crania and beaks, 9; pelvis, 26; types of D. elephant opus, 47 ; D. crassus and D. casuarinus, 47; D. huttonii, 52; D. novae-sealandiae, 63; D. maximus (autho¬ rity yielded to Haast), 72; restoration of egg, 73; skin of moa, 75 ; classifica¬ tion, 76; caeca in Apteryx, 87. ozveni (Pachyornis ozveni), 44. P Pachyornis, 35 ; elephantopus, 36 ; pygmaeus, 39; mappini, 41; ozveni, 44. Palaeocasuarius (Megalapteryx) , 30. Palapteryx (Dinornis) , 61. Palaeocorax moriorium, 93. Palaeognathae, relationships, 86-87 ; palate, 86-87. Palate, moa, 21 ; rhea, 21 ; immature, 21 ; kiwi, 21 ; palaeognathous and neogna- thus, 84, 86, 87. Papatowai, moa and midden deposits, 94. Parker, T. J., 5; beak form in classifica¬ tion, 9; families of moa, 11; classifica¬ tion on skull characters, 7, 9, 76, des¬ cription of skull, 23; wing of Apteryx, 83. Parker, W. K., embryonic fore-limb, 83. parkeri (Euryapteryx gravis), 54. parvus (Anomalopteryx didiformis), 18. Pataua, dune and midden deposits, 93. Pelvis, A. didiformis, 28; M . didinus, 34; P. elephantopus, 39; P. mappini, 42; Em. crassus, 50; Eu. exilis, 59; D. novae-sea¬ landiae, 66; palaeognathae, 87. Phylogeny of Palaeognathae, 81. plains (Dinornis torosus), 70. Polack, J. S., Maori traditions, 93, 94. “Polynesian Mythology,” references to moa, 95. Polynesian nature of moa-hunter culture, 94. ponderosus (Pachyornis elephantopus) 36. Pope, J. H., Maori poem on moa, 96. potens (Dinornis robustus) 71. Powell, A. W. B., 6; Tertiary climates, 89; mollusca in dune deposits, 93. Priority of names proposed, 100. Pycraft, W. P., structure of bird palate, 21, 84, 86. Pycroft, A. T., 5; dune and midden de¬ posits distinguished, 93. pygmaeus (Pachyornis pygmaeus) , 39-41. Pygostyle, a rhipiduran character, 84. Pyramid Valley, swamp deposit, 5, 39, 90. Pyke, V., surface finds, 91 ; human re¬ mains, 97. R Rangi-hua-moa, named from last feast of moa egg, 96. Ratites, relationships and distribution of, 86-89 ; primitive pre-volant, or flight lost, 81-86. 117 Reichenbach, K., classification, 76. Rhea, relationships, 86. rheides Dinornis, indeterminate, 100. Robertson, A., bones from Makirikiri, 6. Robertson, Sir Carrick, collecting expedi¬ tions, 5. robustus (Dinornis robustus), 71. Rothschild, W., 6, 7 ; classification, 76, 77. rothschildi (Pachyornis elephant opus), 36. Rule, Dr. J., 5. S Scapulo-coracoid : Anomalopteryx , 28; Mega¬ lap ter yx, 35; P. mappini, 42, Eu. exilis , 60 ; Dinornis , 61. Scotia Arc, antarctic land bridge, 88. Skottsberg, C., Antarctica in floral and faunal distribution, 88. Sex dimorphism : beak, 10; size, 19, 79. Silky-fowl, poultry, 84. Skin of moa, 75. Skinner, H. D., moa remains in Maori camp sites, 92, 94. Skull: A. didiformis , 20; M. didinns , 31; P. elephant opus, 38; P. mappini , 41; E. crassus, 47 ; E. huttonii, 52; Eu. exilis, 58, D. novae-zealandiae, 65; structural ele¬ ments, 23 ; measurements of, 24. Speight, R., post-glacial climate, 91. Species, number to be admitted, 12 ; varia¬ tion and limits of, 79 ; origin on isolated areas, 79; inter-island groups, 80, 90. Stack, Rev. W., Maori tradition of moa, 95. Stead, E. F., restoration of egg, 90. Sternum: A. didiformis, 28; M. didinns. 35; P. elephant opus , 39; P. mappini, 42; Em. crassus, 50; Eu. exilis, 60; D. novae-zea¬ landiae, 66. Stomach contents, 91. strenuus (Dinornis torosus), 70. Struthiomimus, 83. Struthioides, variant of struthoides, q.v. Stru-thioni formes , origin and relationships, 88. struthoides (Dinornis novae-zealandiae), 64; status of name, 63. Study material, nature of, 6, 7, 55. Sub-antarctic Islands, absence of moa, 89. Succinea archeyi Powell, in dune deposits, 93. Summary, 98-99. Surface deposits, 91. Swamp deposits, 90. Synonymy, references in part, lo. Syornis (Emeus) , 45. T Takaka, cave deposits, 41. Tamatea, fires of, 95, 96. Taupo, volcanic showers, 96. Taylor, N. H., gizzard stones absent from former forest areas, 91, 96. Taylor, Rev. R., Waingongoro deposits, 92, 93. Te Aute, swamp deposit, 90. tenuipes (Megdlapteryx didinns), 30. Teviotdale, D., moa remains in Maori camp sites, 92, 94; egg-shell drilled, 94. Thorne, G., deposits at Pataua, 93. torosus (Dinornis torosus), 70; type in Auck¬ land Museum, 70. Tracheae, 76; E. crassus, 48. Travers, W. T. L., legends of the moa, 95. Tregear, E., legend of Tamatea, 96. Turbott, E. G., caeca in Apteryx, 82. Tylopteryx (Dinornis), 61. Types, fixing of, 6-8 ; of D. novae-zealandiae , 63 ; question submitted to International Commission, 63. y Vaile, E. Earle, skeleton found at Reporoa, 96. valgus (Pachyornis elephant opus) , 36. validus (Dinornis maximus), 72. velox, Palaeocasuarius (Megalapteryx didinns), 30. Vertebrae: A. didiformis, 24; M. didinns, 35; E. crassus, 48; D. novae-zealandiae, 64-66 ; pelvic, 25 ; extra pre-acetabular, 26. Volcanic ash showers, Gisborne, 18. 118 w Waikaremoana, 5, 18. Waikouaiti, swamp deposit, 90. Waingongoro, dune and midden deposits, 92, 94. Wallace, A. R., distribution of ratites, 86. Wanganui Museum collection, 6; type of Eu. exilis, 57. Watkin, Rev. J., Maori tradition of Moa, 95. Wegener, A., Continental drift, 89. Wells, G. P., orthogenesis, 80. Wells, H. G., orthogenesis, 80. White, J., legends of the moa, 95. Wing, primitive or degenerate in ratites, 85. Wohlers, Rev. J. F. H., Maori tradition of moa, 95. 119 Plate 1. Femur : Fig. 1, D. novac-zealandiae ; 2, M. 5, Em. crassus; did inns; 3, A. didiformis; 6, Eu. gravis. 4, Eu. exit is; 121 # Plate 2. Tibia: Fig. 1, D. novae-sealandiae ; 2, M. didinus; 3, A. dtdiformis; 4, bit. cxilis; 5. Em. crassus; 6, Ea. gravis. 122 Plate 3 Metatarsus : Fig. D novac-scalandiae ; 2, M. 5, Em. crassus ; 6, didinus ; 3, Eu. gravis. A. didifonnis ; 4, Eu. ex il is ; 123 Plate 4 Skull: Fig. 1. D. torosus; 2, M. didinus; 3, A. didiformis; 4, P. mappini; 5, Eu. gravis 124 Plate 5 Skull Fig. 1, D. torosus; 2, M. did inns; 2, A. didiformis ; 4, P. mappini. 125 Plate 6 126 Plate 7 127 ) -:V' Plate 8 Skull, Pachyornis. Figs. 1, 2, skull from Enfield, Otago Museum. Fig. 3, skull from Enfield, “ Pachyornis elcphantopus ” Parker 1895b, pi. 60, fig. 22. 128 Plate 9 Pelvis: Fig. 1, D. novcie-sealandiae ; 2, M. didinus; 3, A. didifonnis ; 4, P. mappini. 129 Plate 10 * ; 3, A. didifonnis ; 4, P. mappini. 130 ♦ Plate 11 45 ■775&M1 ■ -X- : -v/’-'vs. / W-'^y Pelvis : Fig. 1, D. novae-scalandiae ; 2, M. didimis; 3, A. didiformis; 4, P. nicippini , 131 , Plate 12. Sternum : Fig. 1, D. maximus; 2. I), novae- 5, F. mappini ealandiae; 3, M. didimis; 4, A. 6, Eu. cxilis. didiformis ; 132 Plate 13. 133 Plate 14. Tibia and metatarsus: Figs. 1, la, Eu. gravis (after Owen, T,Z.S., 8, pis. 59, 58) ; 2, 2a, P. elephantopus (after Owen, T.Z.S., 4, pis. 47, fig. 5, and pi. 44, fig. 1). 134 Plate 15. A fS OF LEG-BONES. s, except a few in lighter type. erbury Museum; O.M., Otago Museum; B.M., British Museum; W.M., Wanganui Museum. 'X didiformis. Femur length — 100. Tibia length — 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia — 100. G P M D G 4 P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus 33.2 13.0 36.1 39.7 25.8 7.9 14.6 21.8 . . 60.7 • 9.3 33.8 13.3 33.4 40.7 a 9.1 14.6 24.6 30.6 16.4 42.4 43.8 64.5 49.7 32.7 18.3 44.2 . • - 9.3 33.8 13.0 36.5 39.6 . 8.0 15.7 22.5 30.8 17.7 41.2 46.3 61.7 47.0 9.9 35.0 14.8 37.1 44.2 28.2 9.9 15.3 26.3 33.9 19.7 42.7 49.8 62.2 47.6 9.4 34.8 14.1 43.0 26.3 8.9 14.7 23.7 ■ • • ■ ■ ■ 34.7 14.1 35.6 27.3 8.9 14.8 . 35.5 17.9 . ■ 62.3 49.5 9.1 35.9 15.9 34.6 47.2 8.6 23.7 • 18.5 42.0 48.9 60.5 46.0 9.4 37.2 15.0 38.6 44.4 26.6 8.6 14.7 24.4 32.5 19.4 44.3 50.1 62.2 46.3 14.4 38.6 27.1 9.0 14.9 , 32.5 19.5 44.5 • • • 37.1 15.0 38.6 30.4 9.2 15.5 . 36.2 18.8 46.6 ■ 63.8 48.6 8.7 32.9 12.7 35.3 42.0 26.6 8.5 14.3 22.9 31.3 17.6 40.5 46.2 61.8 47.6 . 33.4 13.0 35.6 26.1 8.5 14.2 . 31.3 17.5 40.4 ■ • ■ 8.6 32.8 13.2 37.0 39.2 29.4 8.3 15.3 22.6 32.2 16.8 41.4 43.2 65.0 50.0 8.7 32.8 13.2 37.3 38.8 29.4 8.2 15.2 22.7 32.3 16.8 41.8 43.9 65.0 50.0 9.5 35.3 14.3 37.2 44.1 28.4 9.5 15.6 26.5 34.2 19.6 45.2 50.7 64.0 47.5 9.6 35.4 14.5 37.9 44.2 28.9 9.6 15.6 26.1 33.9 19.4 44.7 50.6 • • 8.6 a 8.0 15.6 23.3 32.2 17.6 42.0 44.6 ■ 49.3 8.6 37.5 15.0 35.8 44.0 27.2 7.9 16.1 21.5 34.1 18.0 44.1 46.0 63.6 43.0 , 37.0 14.8 36.2 27.4 7.9 15.7 . 34.3 17.8 45.0 • ■ • . 37.0 14.8 36.2 . 29.0 7.5 14.2 . . 20.7 47.9 - 62.9 43.5 8.6 36.2 15.7 35.8 46.1 26.8 6.7 15.0 25.0 33.1 17.3 45.0 45.3 65.0 50.0 . 35.8 14.8 37.8 44.4 . a . . > • • • ■ • . 37.4 14.6 43.0 26.3 8.9 14.4 . 35.6 20.7 45.4 - 61.8 41.6 8.2 30.7 12.4 32.9 38.2 25.6 8.6 a 23.6 31.5 17.4 41.5 45.6 62.7 47.5 8.1 34.2 13.5 35.6 25.8 9.2 16.4 25.3 34.1 16.9 43.5 44.6 61.3 47.6 . 35.0 13.8 35.9 a . . a a 34.6 16.9 43.9 • . • . 34.1 14.5 38.2 m 26.0 8.8 14.4 . 32.2 17.2 43.0 - 60.2 49.0 8.3 31.3 13.3 33.9 40.3 , a . . 34.6 18.5 • 47.8 . ■ . 31.4 13.3 34.2 , , • . . . 18.3 42.8 • ■ ■ a 32.5 8.4 15.4 . 34.2 19.0 44.4 . • 47.5 8.4 32.9 13.0 33.7 40.7 26.6 8.8 . 23.6 32.5 17.5 42.9 47.5 63.6 47.3 , . 27.0 8.9 14.4 . . . . ■ • - a . , a a 32.8 18.2 44.7 . . • 8.5 35.2 14.5 37.4 42.9 28.9 9.0 15.5 24.0 35.1 19.3 43.6 50.1 64.1 45.2 8.5 35.7 14.7 37.4 42.9 28.4 8.8 15.6 24.0 35.5 19.5 43.7 50.0 ■ - 8.0 29.3 13.4 32.3 42.1 26.6 9.3 15.6 24.6 34.4 17.6 44.5 44.5 62.9 48.1 8.0 34.6 12.6 36.3 40.8 25.2 8.6 15.3 24.6 29.3 15.8 39.0 42.1 65.7 52.0 . 37.0 12.6 36.0 41.7 25.9 8.6 14.8 > 30.1 16.0 40.1 • . ■ , 35.7 13.4 38.3 43.2 28.1 9.1 15.0 25.2 . • • - 61.7 • 7.9 31.2 11.2 32.8 37.6 24.4 8.4 14.3 22.8 33.5 18.6 44.0 49.0 63.7 44.3 7.6 34.0 12.7 40.4 27.4 8.5 14.6 23.3 32.0 16.7 41.7 43.5 63.1 48.4 , 34.6 12.4 37.2 . 27.4 8.3 14.5 . 32.0 16.7 41.7 • • • 7.6 a 26.1 8.2 15.3 22.4 33.6 16.6 40.7 43.0 . 49.0 8.2 32.8 13.2 34.5 41.8 25.9 8.5 13.8 23.1 32.0 19.0 43.2 48.3 61.1 47.2 m a 26.1 8.6 14.2 . 31.8 19.0 42.1 > . . 8.7 37.8 14.0 36.6 46.5 26.1 8.9 14.7 24.7 37.0 18.7 42.2 53.7 60.3 45.2 8.6 37.3 13.9 36.8 45.5 25.9 8.9 15.0 24.5 37.0 18.7 42.5 53.6 . . 8.2 36.0 13.2 34.7 43.1 25.9 8.7 15.3 24.0 33.8 18.1 45.1 47.4 66.0 48.0 , m . 27.1 8.8 15.4 . 33.8 18.1 45.1 • . . 8.1 33.3 13.2 36.0 39.8 27.9 8.9 16.7 23.6 36.0 18.0 43.1 46.2 67.3 49.7 8.1 , 28.4 8.7 16.6 23.7 35.5 17.9 42.8 46.2 . ■ 7.9 12.7 35.2 39.8 27.3 8.3 15.1 23.4 33.4 18.8 46.6 44.0 64.0 46.3 , 12.8 35.1 g . 8.2 15.1 . 33.4 19.0 45.5 • . ■ 7.6 30.0 13.5 32.6 40.5 26.2 8.7 15.2 23.4 32.5 17.8 41.6 45.7 65.8 47. G a 30.0 13.5 32.2 40.5 , 8.7 15.2 23.4 . • • • • ■ 8.0 33.2 12.5 36.1 39.6 27.7 8.1 16.1 22.5 33.1 17.2 43.9 45.0 65.3 51.0 a 34.8 13.7 31.1 , , , • B 33.4 18.6 40.8 • . • 7.4 a 26.3 8.0 14.1 22.4 31.6 17.3 42.1 46.4 . • 7.4 36.2 13.1 36.7 40.7 26.3 8.0 14.1 22.4 31.5 17.7 42.5 46.3 61.5 46.5 6.4 14.4 . 32.0 17.6 41.9 > a 49.8 , 32.2 19.2 44.4 . a a a 32.5 19.1 44.1 . . a 32.6 12.8 36.1 a , 14.0 • 28.8 17.0 49.0 • 61.7 48.6 . 34.7 14.0 , 27.1 8.7 15.3 • 32.5 19.1 42.0 ■ 65.3 48.6 34.0 13.8 36.0 27.8 8.7 15.3 * 32.4 19.0 40.5 * * ■ DIMENSIONS AND PROPORTIONS OF LEG-BONES. All measurements are from individual skeletons, except a few in lighter type. References: AM., Auckland Museum; D.M., Dominion Museum; H.B., Hawke’s Bay Museum; C.M., Canterbury Museum; O.M., Otago Museum; B.M., British Museum; W.M., Wanganui Museum. Femur. L P M D G Waikaremoana. A.M. 72 26.4 8.8 3.4 9.5 10.5 Pataua. A.M. 27.5 9.3 3.6 9.2 11.2 Glenmark. Lectotype fortis. C.M. . . . a , Mt. Arthur. A.M. 121 26.3 8.9 3.4 9.6 10.5 Mangaotaki. A.M. 184 26.0 9.1 3.8 9.6 11.5 Mangaotaki. A.M. 128 . . 1 25.8 9.0 3.6 . 11.1 25.8 8.9 3.6 9.2 , Waikaremoana. A.M. 148 24.8 8.9 3.8 8.6 11.7 Mt. Arthur. A.M. 114 .. \ 25.2 9.4 3.8 9.7 11.2 l 25.2 , 3.7 9.7 , Mangaotaki. A.M. 25.6 9.5 3.8 9.9 . Mt. Arthur. A.M. 117 .. \ 24.3 8.0 3.1 8.6 10.1 | 24.1 8.0 3.1 8.6 . Waikaremoana. A.M. 70 .. . . f 25.7 8.5 3.4 9.5 10.1 \ 25.7 8.5 3.4 9.6 10.0 Waikaremoana. A.M. 71 . . C 25.1 8.9 3.6 9.4 11.1 i 25.1 8.9 3.7 9.4 11.1 Waikaremoana. A.M. 82 . a a . 10.5 Waikaremoana. A.M. 60 . . ■ ■ \ \ 24.3 9.1 3.6 8.7 10.6 24.3 9.1 3.6 8.8 . Unlocalized: prob. individual. A.M. 24.3 9.1 3.6 8.8 Mangaotaki. A.M. 188 24.7 8.9 3.9 8.8 11.4 Poverty Bay. Type dromaeoides 23.6 8.5 3.5 8.9 10.5 Locality? Tring Mus. 23.5 8.8 3.4 10.1 ■ Collingwood. C.M. 3.4.12 23.9 7.6 3.1 8.2 9.5 Te Anga. A.M. 153 .. .. j 23.3 8.0 3.1 8.3 9.7 l 23.1 8.1 3.2 8.3 S. Is. coll Haast. ? indiv. A.M. 134 22.9 7.8 3.3 8.1 . Waikaremoana. A.M. 63 . . ( ) 24.7 7.7 3.3 8.4 10.0 24.7 7.9 3.3 8.4 ■ Awamarino. A.M. . • • ■ ■ Mangaotaki. A.M. 156 . . ■ ■ \ X Poverty Bay. Type didiformis 24.0 7.9 3.1 8.1 9.8 . . - - 10.3 Waikaremoana. A.M. 55 . . \ 24.0 8.6 3.5 9.0 \ 24.0 8.5 3.5 9.0 10.3 Waikaremoana. A.M. 78 23.5 6.9 3.2 7.6 9.9 Castle Rocks. O.M. . . • • • • \ 1 24.5 8.5 3.1 8.9 10.0 24.0 8.9 3.0 8.7 10.0 Mangaotaki. A.M. 126 22.5 8.0 3.0 8.5 9.7 Castle Rocks. C.M. 3.4.3 23.1 7.2 2.6 7.6 8.7 Mangaotaki. A.M. 151 .. ( 1 22.8 7.7 2.8 8.5 9.2 22.8 7.9 2.8 * Waikaremoana. A.M. 150 ■ • • 7.9 9.5 Mangaotaki. A.M. 51 •• f 22.7 7.5 3.0 1 Locality ? O.M. C.34.11 •• ( 21.7 21.7 8.2 8.1 3.0 3.0 7.9 8.0 10.1 9.9 Waikaremoana. A.M. 149 . . • • f ? Nuhaka. D.M. . . • • • • 1 1 Mangaotaki. A.M. 152 .. J 23.7 8.5 3.1 8.2 10.1 23.7 7.9 3.1 8.6 9.4 22.4 22.2 2.8 2.8 7.9 7.8 8.9 Waikaremoana. A.M. 89 . • \ X Waikaremoana. A.M. 66 Mangaotaki. A.M. 155 Waikaremoana, A.M. 69 . • ' j 23.0 23.0 6.9 6.9 3.1 3.1 7.5 7.4 9.3 9.3 22.7 21.5 7.6 7.5 7.7 2.8 2.9 2.7 8.2 6.7 9.0 8.6 21.1 7.6 2.8 7.8 8.6 Waikaremoana. A.M. 82 Hangatiki. A.M. 102 . . ■ ■ • ■ ■ Nelson. Type parvus. B. M... 20 0 6.6 2.6 7.3 21 .3 7.4 3.0 m . Waiau. C.M. 3.4.11 .. •• | 21.3 7.4 2.9 7.7 • Table A. Anomalcpteryx didiformis. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur length = 100. Tibia length — 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia — 100. L P M D G L P M D G P M D G P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. 43.4 11.2 3.4 6.4 9.5 . . . . . 33.2 13.0 36.1 39.7 25.8 7.9 14.6 21.8 60.7 42.7 . 3.9 6.2 10.5 21.2 6.5 3.5 9.0 9.3 33.8 13.3 33.4 40.7 9.1 14.6 24.6 30.6 16.4 42.4 43.8 64.5 49.7 a . ' a . a 20.8 6.8 3.8 9.1 ■ . . , , a 32.7 18.3 44.2 , a . 42.6 a 3.4 6.7 9.6 20.1 6.2 3.6 8.3 9.3 33.8 13.0 36.5 39.6 . 8.0 15.7 22.5 30.8 17.7 41.2 46.3 61.7 47.0 41.8 11.8 4.1 6.4 11.0 19.9 6.7 3.9 8.5 9.9 35.0 14.8 37.1 44.2 28.2 9.9 15.3 26.3 33.9 19.7 42.7 49.8 62.2 47.6 41.4 11.1 3.7 6.1 9.8 . . ■ ■ 9.4 34.8 14.1 . 43.0 26.3 8.9 14.7 23.7 , . . a a a 41.3 11.3 3.7 6.1 . 19.5 6.9 3.5 ■ • 34.7 14.1 35.6 , 27.3 8.9 14.8 . 35.5 17.9 . . 62.3 49.5 41.0 . 3.5 . 9.7 18.8 . 3.5 7.8 9.1 35.9 15.9 34.6 47.2 , 8.6 , 23.7 . 18.5 42.0 48.9 60.5 46.0 40.6 10.8 3.5 6.0 9.9 18.7 6.1 3.6 8.3 9.4 37.2 15.0 38.6 44.4 26.6 8.6 14.7 24.4 32.5 19.4 44.3 50.1 62.2 46.3 40.5 11.0 3.6 6.0 18.6 6.1 3.6 8.3 ■ . 14.4 38.6 , 27.1 9.0 14.9 * 32.5 19.5 44.5 a a a 40.1 12.2 3.7 6.2 a 19.5 7.0 3.7 9.1 37.1 15.0 38.6 , 30.4 9.2 15.5 , 36.2 18.8 46.6 a 63.8 43.6 39.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 9.1 18.8 5.9 3.3 7.6 8.7 32.9 12.7 35.3 42.0 26.6 8.5 14.3 22.9 31.3 17.6 40.5 46.2 61.8 47.6 39.6 10.3 3.4 5.6 . 18.9 5.9 3.3 7.6 . 33.4 13.0 35.6 , 26.1 8.5 14.2 31.3 17.5 40.4 * a a 39.6 11.7 3.3 6.1 9.1 19.9 6.4 3.3 8.2 8.6 32.8 13.2 37.0 39.2 29.4 8.3 15.3 22.6 32.2 16.8 41.4 43.2 65.0 50.0 39.5 11.6 3.2 6.0 9.0 19.8 6.4 3.3 8.3 8.7 32.8 13.2 37.3 38.8 29.4 8.2 15.2 22.7 32.3 16.8 41.8 43.9 65.0 50.0 39.3 11.2 3.7 6.1 10.2 18.7 6.4 3.7 8.5 9.5 35.3 14.3 37.2 44.1 28.4 9.5 15.6 26.5 34.2 19.6 45.2 50.7 64.0 47.5 39.2 11.4 3.7 6.1 10.2 18.9 6.4 3.7 8.5 9.6 35.4 14.5 37.9 44.2 28.9 9.6 15.6 26.1 33.9 19.4 44.7 50.6 . a 39.0 . 3.2 6.1 9.1 19.3 6.2 3.4 8.1 8.6 , . . . . 8.0 15.6 23.3 32.2 17.6 42.0 44.6 a 49.3 38.6 10.5 3.0 6.2 8.3 18.7 6.4 3.4 8.4 8.6 37.5 15.0 35.8 44.0 27.2 7.9 16.1 21.5 34.1 18.0 44.1 46.0 63.6 49.0 38.2 10.5 3.0 6.0 . 18.7 6.4 3.3 8.3 . 37.0 14.8 36.2 . 27.4 7.9 15.7 . 34.3 17.8 45.0 ■ • 38.6 11.2 2.9 5.8 , 16.8 . 3.5 8.0 . 37.0 14.8 36.2 . 29.0 7.5 14.2 . a 20.7 47.9 - 62.9 43.5 38.0 10.2 2.5 5.7 9.5 19.0 6.3 3.3 8.5 8.6 36.2 15.7 35.8 46.1 26.8 6.7 15.0 25.0 33.1 17.3 45.0 45.3 65.0 50.0 . . , . . . . . . . 35.8 14.8 37.8 44.4 a a . a a . • a a • 38.0 10.0 3.4 5.5 17.5 6.2 3.6 7.9 a 37.4 14.6 43.0 , 26.3 8.9 14.4 a 35.6 20.7 45.4 a 61.8 41.6 38.1 9.7 3.3 9.0 18.1 5.7 3.1 7.5 8.2 30.7 12.4 32.9 38.2 25.6 8.6 a 23.6 31.5 17.4 41.5 45.6 62.7 47.5 38.0 9.8 3.5 6.2 9.5 18.1 6.2 3.1 7.9 8.1 34.2 13.5 35.6 , 25.8 9.2 16.4 25.3 34.1 16.9 43.5 44.6 61.3 47.6 . , 18.2 6.3 3.1 8.0 . 35.0 13.8 35.9 , . a a 34.6 16.9 43.9 . a ■ 38.0 9.9 3.3 5.5 18.6 6.0 3.2 8.0 a 34.1 14.5 38.2 a 26.0 8.8 14.4 32.2 17.2 43.0 . 60.2 49.0 3.4 5.7 8.9 17.3 6.0 3.2 , 8.3 31.3 13.3 33.9 40.3 . a a a 34.6 18.5 • 47.8 • ■ 17.3 5.7 3.2 7.5 . 31.4 13.3 34.2 . a a . a a 18.3 42.8 a a ■ 37.8 9.6 3.2 5.8 18.1 6.2 3.4 8.0 , , . . a 32.5 8.4 15.4 a 34.2 19.0 44.4 ■ • 47.5 37.7 10.0 3.3 8.9 17.7 5.7 3.1 7.6 8.4 32.9 13.0 33.7 40.7 26.6 8.8 a 23.6 32.5 17.5 42.9 47.5 63.6 47.3 37.4 10.1 3.3 5.4 a . . , . . a 27.0 8.9 14.4 . a • • ■ • ■ 17.5 5.7 3.2 7.8 . , . a a . a . . 32.8 18.2 44.7 ■ ■ • 37.5 10.8 3.4 5.8 9.0 16.9 6.1 3.3 7.4 8.5 35.2 14.5 37.4 42.9 28.9 9.0 15.5 24.0 35.1 19.3 43.6 50.1 64.1 45.2 37.4 10.6 3.3 5.8 9.0 16.9 6.0 3.3 7.4 8.5 35.7 14.7 37.4 42.9 28.4 8.8 15.6 24.0 35.5 19.5 43.7 50.0 • • 37.4 10.0 3.5 5.8 9.2 18.0 6.2 3.2 8.0 8.0 29.3 13.4 32.3 42.1 26.6 9.3 15.6 24.6 34.4 17.6 44.5 44.5 62.9 48.1 36.5 9.2 3.1 5.6 9.0 19.0 5.6 3.0 7.4 8.0 34.6 12.6 36.3 40.8 25.2 8.6 15.3 24.6 29.3 15.8 39.0 42.1 65.7 52.0 36.0 9.3 3.1 5.3 , 18.7 5.6 3.0 7.5 . 37.0 12.6 36.0 41.7 25.9 8.6 14.8 • 30.1 16.0 40.1 * • ■ 36.5 10.3 3.3 5.5 9.2 35.7 13.4 38.3 43.2 28.1 9.1 15.0 25.2 • • ■ ■ 61.7 • 36.3 8.8 3.0 5.2 8.2 16.1 5.4 3.0 7.1 7.9 31.2 11.2 32.8 37.6 24.4 8.4 14.3 22.8 33.5 18.6 44.0 49.0 63.7 44.3 36.1 9.9 3.1 5.3 8.4 17.5 5.6 2.9 7.3 7.6 34.0 12.7 . 40.4 27.4 8.5 14.6 23.3 32.0 16.7 41.7 43.5 63.1 48.4 36.1 9.9 3.0 5.2 17.5 5.6 2.9 7.4 34.6 12.4 37.2 . 27.4 8.3 14.5 ■ 32.0 16.7 41.7 ■ • 36.1 9.4 3.0 5.5 8.1 17.7 5.8 2.9 7.2 7.6 , . . . 26.1 8.2 15.3 22.4 33.6 16.6 40.7 43.0 • 49.0 36.0 9.3 3.0 5.0 8.3 17.0 5.4 3.2 7.3 8.2 32.8 13.2 34.5 41.8 25.9 8.5 13.8 23.1 32.0 19.0 43.2 48.3 61.1 47.2 35.9 9.4 3.1 5.1 17.1 5.4 3.3 7.2 . . . 26.1 8.6 14.2 • 31.8 19.0 42.1 • • 36.0 9.4 3.2 5.3 8.9 16.2 6.0 3.4 6.8 8.7 37.8 14.0 36.6 46.5 26.1 8.9 14.7 24.7 37.0 18.7 42.2 53.7 60.3 45.2 35.9 9.3 3.2 5.4 8.8 16.2 5.9 3.4 6.9 8.6 37.3 13.9 36.8 45.5 25.9 8.9 15.0 24.5 37.0 18.7 42.5 53.6 * 35.9 9.7 3.1 5.5 8.6 17.3 5.8 3.1 7.8 8.2 36.0 13.2 34.7 43.1 25.9 8.7 15.3 24.0 33.8 18.1 45.1 47.4 66.0 48.0 35.8 9.7 3.1 5.5 17.3 5.8 3.1 7.7 . . - 27.1 8.8 15.4 • 33.8 18.1 45.1 • • 35.2 9.8 3.0 5.9 8.3 17.5 6.3 3.2 7.5 8.1 33.3 13.2 36.0 39.8 27.9 8.9 16.7 23.6 36.0 18.0 43.1 46.2 67.3 49.7 35.5 10.1 3.1 5.9 8.4 17.5 6.2 3.1 7.5 8.1 . . - 28.4 8.7 16.6 23.7 35.5 17.9 42.8 46.2 • • 35.1 9.6 2.9 5.3 8.2 16.1 5.4 3.0 7.5 7.9 12.7 35.2 39.8 27.3 8.3 15.1 23.4 33.4 18.8 46.6 44.0 64.0 46.3 34.9 2.9 5.3 16.2 5.4 3.1 7.4 12.8 35.1 . • 8.2 15.1 ■ 33.4 19.0 45.5 • ■ ■ 34.9 9.2 3.1 5.2 8.2 16.6 5.4 3.0 6.9 7.6 30.0 13.5 32.6 40.5 26.2 8.7 15.2 23.4 32.5 17.8 41.6 45.7 65.8 47.6 34.9 3.1 5.2 8.2 30.0 13.5 32.2 40.5 • 8.7 15.2 23.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 34.7 9.6 2.8 5.6 7.8 17.7 5.9 3.1 7.8 8.0 33.2 12.5 36.1 39.6 27.7 8.1 16.1 22.5 33.1 17.2 43.9 45.0 65.3 51.0 16.3 5.4 3.0 6.8 34.8 13.7 31.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 33.4 18.6 40.8 • • • 34.3 9.0 2.7 4.9 7.7 15.9 5.0 2.8 6.7 7.4 a . • 26.3 8.0 14.1 22.4 31.6 17.3 42.1 46.4 • * 34.3 9.0 2.7 4.9 7.7 15.9 5.0 2.8 6.8 7.4 36.2 13.1 36.7 40.7 26.3 8.0 14.1 22.4 31.5 17.7 42.5 46.3 61. 5 46.5 6.4 14.4 32.0 17.6 41.9 49.8 33.5 2.1 4.8 16.7 5.3 2.9 7.0 . a • • * 32.2 19.2 44.4 16.6 5.3 3.2 7.4 , ■ • * • 32.5 19.1 44.1 32.7 * 4.6 16.5 15.9 5.4 4.6 3.2 2.7 7.3 7.8 * 32.6 12.8 36.1 . a . 14.0 28.8 17.0 49.0 61.7 48.6 32.3 8.7 2.8 4.9 15.7 5.1 3.0 6.6 34.7 14.0 . ■ 27.1 8.7 15.3 ■ 32.5 19.1 42.0 ■ 65.3 48.6 32.3 9.0 2.8 5.0 a 15.8 5.1 3.0 6.6 ■ 34.0 13.8 36.0 ■ 27.8 8.7 1 5.3 * 32.4 19.0 40.5 • . ' DIMENSIONS AND PROPORTIOI All measurements are from individual skeleton References: AM., Auckland Museum; D.M., Dominion Museum; H.B., Hawke’s Bay Museum; C.M., Cant Table A. Anomaloptery Femur. L P M D G Waikaremoana. A.M. 72 26.4 8.8 3.4 9.5 10.5 Pataua. A.M. 27.5 9.3 3.6 9.2 11.2 Glenmark. Lectotype fortis. C.M... . . • . . Mt. Arthur. A.M. 121 26.3 8.9 3.4 9.6 10.5 Mangaotaki. A.M. 184 26.0 9.1 3.8 9.6 11.5 Mangaotaki. A.M. 128 25.8 9.0 3.6 . 11.1 \ 25.8 8.9 3.6 9.2 . Waikaremoana. A.M. 148 24.8 8.9 3.8 8.6 11.7 Mt. Arthur. A.M. 114 j 25.2 9.4 3.8 9.7 11.2 1 25.2 . 3.7 9.7 . Mangaotaki. A.M. 25.6 9.5 3.8 9.9 . Mt. Arthur. A.M. 117 < 24.3 8.0 3.1 8.6 10.1 \ 24.1 8.0 3.1 8.6 . Waikaremoana. A.M. 70 ( 25.7 8.5 3.4 9.5 10.1 \ 25.7 8.5 3.4 9.6 10.0 Waikaremoana. A.M. 71 ( 25.1 8.9 3.6 9.4 11.1 ) 25.1 8.9 3.7 9.4 11.1 Waikaremoana. A.M. 82 . . ■ ■ 10.5 Waikaremoana. A.M. 60 1 24.3 9.1 3.6 8.7 10.6 1 24.3 9.1 3.6 8.8 ■ Unlocalized: prob. individual. A.M. 24.3 9.1 3.6 8.8 • Mangaotaki. A.M. 188 24.7 8.9 3.9 8.8 11.4 Poverty Bay. Type dromacoides 23.6 8.5 3.5 8.9 10.5 Locality? Tring Mus. 23.5 8.8 3.4 10.1 ■ Collingwood. C.M. 3.4.12 23.9 7.6 3.1 8.2 9.5 Te Anga. A.M. 153 .. f 23.3 8.0 3.1 8.3 9.7 l 23.1 8.1 3.2 8.3 . S. Is. coll Haast. ? indiv. A.M. 134 22.9 7.8 3.3 8.1 • Waikaremoana. A.M. 63 i 24.7 7.7 3.3 8.4 10.0 I 24.7 7.9 3.3 8.4 ■ Awamarino. A.M. . • • ■ • Mangaotaki. A.M. 156 $ 24.0 7.9 3.1 8.1 9.8 ) ■ ■ • ■ ■ Poverty Bay. Type didiformis • • • • * Waikaremoana. A.M. 55 \ 24.0 8.6 3.5 9.0 10.3 I 24.0 8.5 3.5 9.0 10.3 Waikaremoana. A.M. 78 23.5 6.9 3.2 7.6 9.9 Castle Rocks. O.M. 1 24.5 8.5 3.1 8.9 10.0 24.0 8.9 3.0 8.7 10.0 Mangaotaki. A.M. 126 22.5 8.0 3.0 8.5 9.7 Castle Rocks. C.M. 3.4.3 23.1 7.2 2.6 7.6 8.7 Mangaotaki. A.M. 151 \ 22.8 7.7 2.8 ■ 9.2 l 22.8 7.9 2.8 8.5 • Waikaremoana. A.M. 150 . - ■ • ■ Mangaotaki. A.M. 51 ( s 22.7 7.5 3.0 7.9 9.5 Locality ? O.M. C.34.11 t ( 1 21.7 8.2 3.0 7.9 10.1 21.7 8.1 3.0 8.0 9.9 Waikaremoana. A.M. 149 23.7 8.5 3.1 8.2 10.1 Nuhaka. D.M. . . 1 f 23.7 7.9 3.1 8.6 9.4 ) 1 ■ • • • 8.9 Mangaotaki. A.M. 152 22.4 • 2.8 7.9 \ 22.2 • 2.8 7.8 ■ Waikaremoana. A.M. 89 23.0 6.9 3.1 7.5 9.3 1 23.0 6.9 3.1 7.4 9.3 Waikaremoana. A.M. 66 22.7 7.6 2.8 8.2 9.0 Mangaotaki. A.M. 155 21.5 7.5 2.9 6.7 8.6 Waikaremoana. A.M. 69 i . 7.7 2.7 ■ 1 21.1 7.6 2.8 7.8 8.6 Waikaremoana. A.M. 82 ■ • • • • ITangatiki. A.M. 102 .. ■ • • ■ • Nelson. Type parvus. B. M... 20.0 6.6 2.6 7.3 ■ Waiau. C.M. 3.4.11 . 1 21.3 7.4 3.0 • • 1 21.3 7.4 2.9 7.7 • Tibia. Metatarsus. L P M D G L P M D 43.4 11.2 3.4 6.4 9.5 . . 42.7 3.9 6.2 10.5 21.2 6.5 3.5 9.0 , 20.8 6.8 3.8 9.1 42.6 3.4 6.7 9.6 20.1 6.2 3.6 8.3 41.8 11.8 4.1 6.4 11.0 19.9 6.7 3.9 8.5 41.4 11.1 3.7 6.1 9.8 . • • • 41.3 11.3 3.7 6.1 a 19.5 6.9 3.5 • 41.0 3.5 a 9.7 18.8 a 3.5 7.8 40.6 10.8 3.5 6.0 9.9 18.7 6.1 3.6 8.3 40.5 11.0 3.6 6.0 . 18.6 6.1 3.6 8.3 40.1 12.2 3.7 6.2 a 19.5 7.0 3.7 9.1 39.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 9.1 18.8 5.9 3.3 7.6 39.6 10.3 3.4 5.6 a 18.9 5.9 3.3 7.6 39.6 11.7 3.3 6.1 9.1 19.9 6.4 3.3 8.2 39.5 11.6 3.2 6.0 9.0 19.8 6.4 3.3 8.3 39.3 11.2 3.7 6.1 10.2 18.7 6.4 3.7 8.5 39.2 11.4 3.7 6.1 10.2 18.9 6.4 3.7 8.5 39.0 , 3.2 6.1 9.1 19.3 6.2 3.4 8.1 38.6 10.5 3.0 6.2 8.3 18.7 6.4 3.4 8.4 38.2 10.5 3.0 6.0 . 18.7 6.4 3.3 8.3 38.6 11.2 2.9 5.8 . 16.8 . 3.5 8.0 38.0 10.2 2.5 5.7 9.5 19.0 6.3 3.3 8.5 38.0 10.0 3.4 5.5 17.5 6.2 3.6 7.9 38.1 9.7 3.3 . 9.0 18.1 5.7 3.1 7.5 38.0 9.8 3.5 6.2 9.5 18.1 6.2 3.1 7.9 , a , 18.2 6.3 3.1 8.0 38.0 9.9 3.3 5.5 a 18.6 6.0 3.2 8.0 3.4 5.7 8.9 17.3 6.0 3.2 . . . 17.3 5.7 3.2 7.5 37.8 9.6 3.2 5.8 . 18.1 6.2 3.4 8.0 37.7 10.0 3.3 a 8.9 17.7 5.7 3.1 7.6 37.4 10.1 3.3 5.4 . a . - ■ m a a 17.5 5.7 3.2 7.8 37.5 10.8 3.4 5.8 9.0 16.9 6.1 3.3 7.4 37.4 10.6 3.3 5.8 9.0 16.9 6.0 3.3 7.4 37.4 10.0 3.5 5.8 9.2 18.0 6.2 3.2 8.0 36.5 9.2 3.1 5.6 9.0 19.0 5.6 3.0 7.4 36.0 9.3 3.1 5.3 a 18.7 5.6 3.0 7.5 36.5 10.3 3.3 5.5 9.2 a . - - 36.3 8.8 3.0 5.2 8.2 16.1 5.4 3.0 7.1 36.1 9.9 3.1 5.3 8.4 17.5 5.6 2.9 7.3 36.1 9.9 3.0 5.2 . 17.5 5.6 2.9 7.4 36.1 9.4 3.0 5.5 8.1 17.7 5.8 2.9 7.2 36.0 9.3 3.0 5.0 8.3 17.0 5.4 3.2 7.3 35.9 9.4 3.1 5.1 a 17.1 5.4 3.3 7.2 36.0 9.4 3.2 5.3 8.9 16.2 6.0 3.4 6.8 35.9 9.3 3.2 5.4 8.8 16.2 5.9 3.4 6.9 35.9 9.7 3.1 5.5 8.6 17.3 5.8 3.1 7.8 35.8 9.7 3.1 5.5 a 17.3 5.8 3.1 7.7 35.2 9.8 3.0 5.9 8.3 17.5 6.3 3.2 7.5 35.5 10.1 3.1 5.9 8.4 17.5 6.2 3.1 7.5 35.1 9.6 2.9 5.3 8.2 16.1 5:4 3.0 7.5 34.9 m 2.9 5.3 a 16.2 5.4 3.1 7.4 34.9 9.2 3.1 5.2 8.2 16.6 5.4 3.0 6.9 34.9 . 3.1 5.2 8.2 a . - . 34.7 9.6 2.8 5.6 7.8 17.7 5.9 3.1 7.8 a , , . 16.3 5.4 3.0 6.8 34.3 9.0 2.7 4.9 7.7 15.9 5.0 2.8 6.7 34.3 9.0 2.7 4.9 7.7 15.9 5.0 2.8 6.8 33.5 . 2.1 4.8 . 16.7 5.3 2.9 7.0 m a . a . 16.6 5.3 3.2 7.4 m . . . . 16.5 5.4 3.2 7.3 32.7 a a 4.6 a 15.9 4.6 2.7 7.8 32.3 8.7 2.8 4.9 a 15.7 5.1 3.0 6.6 32.3 9.0 2.8 5.0 a 15.8 5.1 3.0 6.6 137 Table B. Megalapteryx didinus, M. benhami. Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur length = 100. Tibia length — 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia — 100. L P M D G L P M D G L P M D G P M D G P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. Mt. Arthur. A.M. 164 j 25.4 . 3.0 7.5 9.7 42.7 8.4 3.0 5.1 8.5 18.9 5.3 2.8 7.4 7.5 11.8 29.7 38.2 7.0 11.9 19.9 27.7 14.6 39.0 39.6 59.4 43.4 ) V, • ■ • ■ . 42.5 8.8 3.0 5.1 8.5 19.0 5.2 2.8 7.5 . . . 20.8 7.0 12.0 20.0 27.3 14.7 39.4 Type Palaeocasuarius elegans . . 27.3 8.2 . 8.6 . 40.6 . . 5.1 . 19.8 . 3.8 8.4 . 30.2 31.6 12.5 19.2 41.7 67.0 48.8 Mt. Arthur. 1 ring Mus. 26.5 7.3 3.1 8.8 10.0 40.5 10.2 3.0 6.6 8.3 19.0 5.8 3.0 8.0 8.0 27.6 11.7 33.2 37.7 25.1 7.3 13.8 20.5 30.8 15.7 42.3 42.2 65.4 46.9 l 26.7 • 3.0 8.0 10.0 40.5 10.1 3.1 6.6 8.3 19.0 5.8 3.0 8.2 8.0 . 11.2 33.3 37.4 25.0 7.6 13.8 20.5 30.8 16.0 43.3 42.2 L. Wakatipu. Type, M. tenuipes 25.3 . . 8.2 . 40.5 4.4 32.4 10.8 Waingongoro. Type hamiltoni. B.M. 25.2 7.6 3.3 7.6 30.2 12.9 30.2 Queenstown. Type didinus. B.M. 1 ■ • * . 40.0 9.5 3.1 6.6 . 18.8 6.3 3.8 . . m 23.7 7.9 16.5 33.5 20.2 47.0 l ■ . • . 40.0 9.5 3.1 . . , , . 23.8 7.8 Mt. Arthur. A.M. 115 \ ■ • - • . . . . 18.4 5.7 2.9 7.6 . . . , 30.9 15.8 41.3 X ■ • • ■ ■ . . ■ 18.2 5.6 2.9 7.6 . . . . , 30.9 15.9 41.7 Type Palaeocasuarius velox 24.1 7.0 6.3 . . . . , [17.8 3.8 7.6 ■ ] 28.9 26.3 [ . 21.4 42.8 . ] Metatarsus Mt. Arthur. A.M. 165 \ • . . . 38.6 7.7 2.5 4.9 7.1 17.8 4.9 2.5 6.6 6.6 , 20.0 6.4 12.6 18.4 27.9 14.1 37.2 37.1 didiformi i 46.1 l 24.3 6.7 2.4 6.9 8.0 38.7 7.8 2.5 4.9 7.1 . . , . 27.6 9.7 28.4 33.0 20.1 6.6 12.6 18.4 62.7 L. Wakatipu. B.M. 22.8 . . 6.7 37.8 . . 4.7 . , . . 29.3 12.4 59.0 Old Man Range. O.M. 22.6 6.1 3.1 . . 37.4 8.9 3.0 4.8 17.3 5.0 3.1 7.3 26.9 13.7 m m 23.8 7.6 13.0 28.9 17.8 42.5 60.5 46.2 Inangahua. C.M. 8.1.8 \ • • - . 36.5 8.1 2.6 4.9 17.4 4.7 2.8 5.5 , . « 22.3 7.1 13.6 33.4 16.1 31.6 66.4 44.8 l 24.4 6.8 2.4 7.0 . 36.8 8.2 2.7 5.0 16.5 4.8 2.5 6.8 28.0 10.0 28.6 22.2 7.2 13.3 29.1 15.4 41.0 Mt. Arthur. A.M. 166 24.5 7.1 2.5 7.0 8.4 36.9 8.1 2.6 5.1 7.4 16.4 4.9 2.6 6.8 6.9 29.0 10.0 28.5 34.3 21.9 7.1 13.8 20.1 29.1 15.5 41.5 66 4 44.5 Mt. Arthur. A.M. 120 24.1 7.1 2.6 7.5 8.1 35.9 8.2 2.5 5.0 6.8 16.3 5.0 2.7 7.0 6.4 29.6 10.8 31.2 33.6 22.8 6.9 16.7 19.0 30.6 16.6 42.9 39.2 Takaka. Type hectori 20.5 5.3 2.1 5.6 . 35.0 6.8 2.1 4.1 14.6 4.3 2.2 5.7 25.8 10.5 27.3 19.4 6.8 11.8 , 29.2 15.2 38.9 57.1 41.6 Aniseed Valley. D.M. . . 21.0 6.2 2.6 7.0 8.0 34.0 7.5 2.6 5.0 17.0 5.3 2.7 6.6 7.1 29.7 12.3 33.4 38.1 22.1 7.6 14.8 31.2 15.9 38.8 41.7 61.8 50.0 Type Palaeocasuarius haasti . . 21.6 5.7 . . - . . 17.8 . 2.9 7.0 . 21.3 , . , , . . , 16.4 39.2 , . Takaka. D.M. \ 20.7 6.7 2.5 6.7 . 34.1 7.9 2.6 4.4 16.5 4.7 2.6 6.2 32.4 12.1 32.5 23.1 7.6 12.9 , 28.7 15.7 37.7 60,7 45.4 X 20.7 6.7 2.5 6.7 34.1 8.1 2.6 4.4 16.5 4.8 2.6 6.2 32.4 12.1 32.5 23.7 7.6 13.0 29.1 15.7 37.7 • • Mt. Arthur. Type M. benhami. A.M. 29.3 9.2 3.9 9.3 12.5 45.4 10.9 3.9 6.3 10.6 ■ ■ • ■ ■ 31.4 13.3 31.7 42.7 24.0 8.6 13.9 23.3 • • • ■ 64.5 ■ Table C. (a) Pachyornis elephantopus. South Is. B.M. A. 168. Type, immanis South Island. C.M. 9.1.14 Awamoa. Type, teste Owen Awamoa. Type, teste Lyd. Hamilton, O.M. Lectotype major . . Pyramid Valley. C.M. xx B. Locality ? Type rothschildi Waitaki. O.M. Canterbury. C.M. Type inhabilis . ■ Hamilton. O.M. Lectotype ponderosus Enfield. C.M. Type valgus L 32.9 32.3 28.0 30.0 29.3 Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur length — 100. Tibia length — 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Femur. Metatarsus P M D G L P M D G L P M D G P M D G P M D G P M D G Tibia — 100. 25.5 13.0 8.1 16.7 19.8 50.9 31.7 65.6 78.2 12.9 6.1 15.5 19.2 57.4 17.4 6.0 11.4 16.5 24.2 11.7 6.9 13.2 17.3 39.2 18.7 47.1 57.4 30.3 10.5 19.8 28.8 48.3 28.5 54.5 71.3 57.0 42.0 23.9 6.5 13.8 . , a . . . 27.1 57.7 . . . . 23.5 11.2 6.1 13.5 16.7 , , . , a a . 47.6 26.0 57.4 70.2 • . . 23.6 11.7 7.5 14.8 19.0 , , . . a . . . 49.5 31.7 62.5 80.5 • • 14.0 6.1 15.7 , 56.7 18.0 5.8 10.4 . 23.2 10.6 6.0 13.3 , 43.5 18.9 48.7 . 31.4 10.2 18.4 . 45.7 26.0 57.4 ■ 57.0 41.0 6.4 13.0 55.9 t , 7.4 , 21.6 . 5.3 12.7 , Much abraded bones . • ■ • ■ • 12.9 5.7 15.5 17.4 53.6 16.0 5.0 9.5 14.2 23.1 10.5 5.8 13.4 15.2 43.0 19.1 51.0 56.7 29.8 9.4 17.7 26.6 45.4 25.1 58.0 68.6 56 0 43.0 13.5 5.2 12.9 49.6 15.0 4.5 9.1 22.0 9.3 5.2 11.6 45.9 17.7 43.9 . 30.0 9.1 18.4 . 42.4 23.5 52.7 • 59.0 44.0 , . t , 21.0 10.0 5.8 12.3 14.8 , , , . . . . . 48.0 27.7 53.7 70.5 ■ ■ • ■ ■ • 45.7 14.3 4.3 8.4 ■ ■ * ■ • ■ ■ • • ■ 31.3 9.4 18.3 • 1 * 1 * * ► Table B. Megalapteryx didinus, M. benhami. Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur length = 100. Tibia length — 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia — 100. L P M D G L P M D G L P M D G P M D G P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. Mt. Arthur. A.M. 164 j 25.4 . 3.0 7.5 9.7 42.7 8.4 3.0 5.1 8.5 18.9 5.3 2.8 7.4 7.5 11.8 29.7 38.2 7.0 11.9 19.9 27.7 14.6 39.0 39.6 59.4 43.4 ) V, • ■ • ■ . 42.5 8.8 3.0 5.1 8.5 19.0 5.2 2.8 7.5 . . . 20.8 7.0 12.0 20.0 27.3 14.7 39.4 Type Palaeocasuarius elegans . . 27.3 8.2 . 8.6 . 40.6 . . 5.1 . 19.8 . 3.8 8.4 . 30.2 31.6 12.5 19.2 41.7 67.0 48.8 Mt. Arthur. 1 ring Mus. 26.5 7.3 3.1 8.8 10.0 40.5 10.2 3.0 6.6 8.3 19.0 5.8 3.0 8.0 8.0 27.6 11.7 33.2 37.7 25.1 7.3 13.8 20.5 30.8 15.7 42.3 42.2 65.4 46.9 l 26.7 • 3.0 8.0 10.0 40.5 10.1 3.1 6.6 8.3 19.0 5.8 3.0 8.2 8.0 . 11.2 33.3 37.4 25.0 7.6 13.8 20.5 30.8 16.0 43.3 42.2 L. Wakatipu. Type, M. tenuipes 25.3 . . 8.2 . 40.5 4.4 32.4 10.8 Waingongoro. Type hamiltoni. B.M. 25.2 7.6 3.3 7.6 30.2 12.9 30.2 Queenstown. Type didinus. B.M. 1 ■ • * . 40.0 9.5 3.1 6.6 . 18.8 6.3 3.8 . . m 23.7 7.9 16.5 33.5 20.2 47.0 l ■ . • . 40.0 9.5 3.1 . . , , . 23.8 7.8 Mt. Arthur. A.M. 115 \ ■ • - • . . . . 18.4 5.7 2.9 7.6 . . . , 30.9 15.8 41.3 X ■ • • ■ ■ . . ■ 18.2 5.6 2.9 7.6 . . . . , 30.9 15.9 41.7 Type Palaeocasuarius velox 24.1 7.0 6.3 . . . . , [17.8 3.8 7.6 ■ ] 28.9 26.3 [ . 21.4 42.8 . ] Metatarsus Mt. Arthur. A.M. 165 \ • . . . 38.6 7.7 2.5 4.9 7.1 17.8 4.9 2.5 6.6 6.6 , 20.0 6.4 12.6 18.4 27.9 14.1 37.2 37.1 didiformi i 46.1 l 24.3 6.7 2.4 6.9 8.0 38.7 7.8 2.5 4.9 7.1 . . , . 27.6 9.7 28.4 33.0 20.1 6.6 12.6 18.4 62.7 L. Wakatipu. B.M. 22.8 . . 6.7 37.8 . . 4.7 . , . . 29.3 12.4 59.0 Old Man Range. O.M. 22.6 6.1 3.1 . . 37.4 8.9 3.0 4.8 17.3 5.0 3.1 7.3 26.9 13.7 m m 23.8 7.6 13.0 28.9 17.8 42.5 60.5 46.2 Inangahua. C.M. 8.1.8 \ • • - . 36.5 8.1 2.6 4.9 17.4 4.7 2.8 5.5 , . « 22.3 7.1 13.6 33.4 16.1 31.6 66.4 44.8 l 24.4 6.8 2.4 7.0 . 36.8 8.2 2.7 5.0 16.5 4.8 2.5 6.8 28.0 10.0 28.6 22.2 7.2 13.3 29.1 15.4 41.0 Mt. Arthur. A.M. 166 24.5 7.1 2.5 7.0 8.4 36.9 8.1 2.6 5.1 7.4 16.4 4.9 2.6 6.8 6.9 29.0 10.0 28.5 34.3 21.9 7.1 13.8 20.1 29.1 15.5 41.5 66 4 44.5 Mt. Arthur. A.M. 120 24.1 7.1 2.6 7.5 8.1 35.9 8.2 2.5 5.0 6.8 16.3 5.0 2.7 7.0 6.4 29.6 10.8 31.2 33.6 22.8 6.9 16.7 19.0 30.6 16.6 42.9 39.2 Takaka. Type hectori 20.5 5.3 2.1 5.6 . 35.0 6.8 2.1 4.1 14.6 4.3 2.2 5.7 25.8 10.5 27.3 19.4 6.8 11.8 , 29.2 15.2 38.9 57.1 41.6 Aniseed Valley. D.M. . . 21.0 6.2 2.6 7.0 8.0 34.0 7.5 2.6 5.0 17.0 5.3 2.7 6.6 7.1 29.7 12.3 33.4 38.1 22.1 7.6 14.8 31.2 15.9 38.8 41.7 61.8 50.0 Type Palaeocasuarius haasti . . 21.6 5.7 . . - . . 17.8 . 2.9 7.0 . 21.3 , . , , . . , 16.4 39.2 , . Takaka. D.M. \ 20.7 6.7 2.5 6.7 . 34.1 7.9 2.6 4.4 16.5 4.7 2.6 6.2 32.4 12.1 32.5 23.1 7.6 12.9 , 28.7 15.7 37.7 60,7 45.4 X 20.7 6.7 2.5 6.7 34.1 8.1 2.6 4.4 16.5 4.8 2.6 6.2 32.4 12.1 32.5 23.7 7.6 13.0 29.1 15.7 37.7 • • Mt. Arthur. Type M. benhami. A.M. 29.3 9.2 3.9 9.3 12.5 45.4 10.9 3.9 6.3 10.6 ■ ■ • ■ ■ 31.4 13.3 31.7 42.7 24.0 8.6 13.9 23.3 • • • ■ 64.5 ■ Table C. (a) Pachyornis elephantopus. South Is. B.M. A. 168. Type, immanis South Island. C.M. 9.1.14 Awamoa. Type, teste Owen Awamoa. Type, teste Lyd. Hamilton, O.M. Lectotype major . . Pyramid Valley. C.M. xx B. Locality ? Type rothschildi Waitaki. O.M. Canterbury. C.M. Type inhabilis . ■ Hamilton. O.M. Lectotype ponderosus Enfield. C.M. Type valgus L 32.9 32.3 28.0 30.0 29.3 Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur length — 100. Tibia length — 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Femur. Metatarsus P M D G L P M D G L P M D G P M D G P M D G P M D G Tibia — 100. 25.5 13.0 8.1 16.7 19.8 50.9 31.7 65.6 78.2 12.9 6.1 15.5 19.2 57.4 17.4 6.0 11.4 16.5 24.2 11.7 6.9 13.2 17.3 39.2 18.7 47.1 57.4 30.3 10.5 19.8 28.8 48.3 28.5 54.5 71.3 57.0 42.0 23.9 6.5 13.8 . , a . . . 27.1 57.7 . . . . 23.5 11.2 6.1 13.5 16.7 , , . , a a . 47.6 26.0 57.4 70.2 • . . 23.6 11.7 7.5 14.8 19.0 , , . . a . . . 49.5 31.7 62.5 80.5 • • 14.0 6.1 15.7 , 56.7 18.0 5.8 10.4 . 23.2 10.6 6.0 13.3 , 43.5 18.9 48.7 . 31.4 10.2 18.4 . 45.7 26.0 57.4 ■ 57.0 41.0 6.4 13.0 55.9 t , 7.4 , 21.6 . 5.3 12.7 , Much abraded bones . • ■ • ■ • 12.9 5.7 15.5 17.4 53.6 16.0 5.0 9.5 14.2 23.1 10.5 5.8 13.4 15.2 43.0 19.1 51.0 56.7 29.8 9.4 17.7 26.6 45.4 25.1 58.0 68.6 56 0 43.0 13.5 5.2 12.9 49.6 15.0 4.5 9.1 22.0 9.3 5.2 11.6 45.9 17.7 43.9 . 30.0 9.1 18.4 . 42.4 23.5 52.7 • 59.0 44.0 , . t , 21.0 10.0 5.8 12.3 14.8 , , , . . . . . 48.0 27.7 53.7 70.5 ■ ■ • ■ ■ • 45.7 14.3 4.3 8.4 ■ ■ * ■ • ■ ■ • • ■ 31.3 9.4 18.3 • 1 * 1 * * I t Table C. (b) Pachyornis pygmaeus , Table D. (a) Pachyornis mappini. Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur length = 100. Tibia length — 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia — 100. L P M D G L P M D G L P M D G P M D G P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. Amodeo Bay. A.M. 19.5 3.0 8.0 10.8 35.5 11.0 2.9 5.5 8.4 15.6 6.0 3.1 7.2 8.1 Locality ? prob. indiv. D.M. 12 19.5 7.5 3.3 8.1 10.2 35.0 10.4 3.4 5.8 8.9 13.5 5.9 3.2 6.5 8.3 38.4 16.9 41.5 52.3 29.7 9.5 16.6 25.4 43.7 23.8 48.2 61.5 54.4 38.6 Mangaotaki. A.M. 124. Type . . \ 20.3 7.9 3.3 8.5 10.3 33.6 9.9 3.1 5.9 8.3 15.6 5.8 3.3 7.6 8.4 38.9 16.0 41.7 50.7 29.5 9.1 17.6 24.7 . ) 19.7 8.1 3.3 8.6 . 33.0 10.0 . . . 15.5 5.7 3.3 7.6 . 40.8 17.1 43.5 . 30.2 , Karamu : Archey, 1927. A.M. 387 . . 19.5 . 3.4 9.1 11.0 33.3 10.5 3.3 5.7 9.6 . . . . . . . . Locality ? Gisborne. A.M. 132 18.1 7.1 3.0 7.7 9.4 32.5 9.4 2.8 5.4 7.9 14.5 5.8 3.0 7.2 7.7 . . . , , , Doubtless Bay. A.M. 210 . . . , . 31.0 8.8 . 4.7 . . . . . . , . , , , , Bay of Plenty. A.M. 146 . . . . 30.9 . 2.6 4.8 7.5 . . . . . , . . , . , . , , Doubtless Bay. A.M. 367 . . . . . 30.6 8.2 2.4 4.4 6.5 13.7 4.6 2.2 5.9 5.9 . . . . 27.0 7.7 14.4 21.2 33.6 16.1 43.1 43.1 45.0 Waikaremoana. A.M. 85 . . ■ • \ X 16.8 6.4 2.6 6.3 8.2 29.0 . 2.5 4.5 6.9 13.4 4.6 2.7 6.1 6.9 37.8 15.4 37.7 48.9 8.5 15.6 23.8 33.9 19.7 45.5 51.5 58.0 46.3 16.8 6.2 2.6 6.4 . 29.0 8.0 2.5 4.5 . . • . . . 37.2 15.7 37.9 , 27.5 8.5 15.6 . , . . , Waikuku Beach. A.M. 29 . . ■ • \ \ 16.1 6.5 2.5 . 7.9 28.7 . 2.6 4.7 7.2 13.0 5.1 2.5 6.0 6.8 40.3 15.5 . 49.0 , 9.2 16.3 25.0 39.2 19.2 46.4 57.3 56.1 47.7 16.1 6.5 2.6 6.8 . . . . . . . . . . . 40.3 15.5 42.5 , , , , . t , A.M. 305 . 17.6 6.7 2.6 6.9 8.5 28.5 7.9 2.4 4.7 7.0 13.7 5.0 2.5 6.2 6.7 . . , . , , . , . , , Ilukerenui. A.M. 234 . . , . . . . 28.5 7.7 2.4 4.2 7.0 . . . . . . . . , . . . a . . . . . . . . . 27.9 7.9 2.6 4.6 7.2 . . . , . . , . , . , , , , Whangarei. A.M. 226 . . . - • 27.9 • 2.6 4.8 7.2 ■ ■ - ■ • > . . . . . . . . . . . Waikaremoana. A.M. 84 16.2 6.1 2.7 6.5 8.0 27.3 7.9 2.2 4.1 6.9 12.7 4.6 2.4 5.8 6.5 37.8 17.2 40.0 49.2 29.0 8.2 15.1 25.2 36.2 19.1 45.6 51.2 59.4 46.4 ■ * ■ * • 27.2 7.9 2.3 4.2 • 12.7 4.6 2.4 5.8 ■ • • ■ • 29.2 8.5 15.7 • 36.4 19.1 45.8 * ' Table D. ( b ) Pachyornis oweni. Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur leng th = 100. Tibia length = 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia — 100. L P M D G L P M D G L P M D G P M D G P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. Westmere. A.M. 185.. . , 26.3 7.5 2.3 4.3 6.5 . . , , , . . . , . . . . . . . Locality ? A.M. 144 .. ■ ■ • ■ 26.0 ■ 2.4 4.2 6.8 ■ • ■ • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • * Locality ? A.M. 144a . . . • • ■ ■ • ■ • ■ 11.6 4.4 2.1 ■ 5.7 . . . • ■ ■ ■ • • • ■ ■ • Pfltniin. A.M. 384 . Tyne 14.3 6.0 2.2 4.8 6.5 24.3 6.3 1.9 3.7 6.2 11.3 4.0 2.1 5.0 5.5 34.1 15.4 33.6 46.6 26.1 7.8 15.4 25.5 35.6 18.2 44.6 48.2 59.0 46.3 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 154 13.5 4.8 1.8 5.1 CO CD 23.3 6.5 1.8 3.3 5.5 10.5 3.8 2.0 4.9 5.5 36.2 13.7 38.0 46.7 28.0 7.9 14.2 23.6 36.3 19.2 46.7 52.5 58.0 45.0 Locality ? A.M. 178 .. . ■ • • ■ 23.0 6.8 2.4 3.9 6.3 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ . . . • 29.6 10.2 16.9 27.6 ■ ■ • • • * Tom Bowling Ba\ . A.M. 179 . . * ' 10.1 3.5 2.0 4.4 5.3 ' * ' ' 34.3 19.1 42.7 52.0 ' 139 Table E. Emeus huttonii, Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur length — 100. Tibia length — 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia — 100. L P M D G L P M D G L P M D G p M D G P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. Pyramid Valley. C.M. viii A. 24.4 9.0 3.3 9.8 11.0 39.7 11.1 3.3 6.4 9.9 18.7 6.8 3.7 8.3 9.7 37.0 13.3 40.2 46.0 28.0 8.3 16.1 25.0 36.4 19.7 44.5 52.0 62.0 47.6 Lnheld. C.M. Type compacta . . . . . 38.6 11.7 3.9 6.1 . . . . , . . 30.2 10.1 15.8 Hamilton. Hutton 1875 — max. 22.9 S.G 8.9 12.2 38.6 11.4 6.3 10.4 18.4 6.3 3.7 8.1 10 2 37.6 38.9 53.3 29.5 16.3 26.9 34.3 20.1 44.0 55.5 mean 22.9 8.4 8.9 12.1 37.5 10.9 5.6 9.8 17.1 6.2 3.5 8.1 9.3 36.7 3S.9 52.8 29.0 14.9 26.1 36.2 20.4 47.3 57.8 min. 22.9 8.2 8.9 11.9 36.8 10.7 5.1 9.1 16.9 5.7 3.2 7.9 9.5 35.8 38.9 52.0 29.1 13.9 24.7 33.7 18.9 46.8 56.2 Hamilton. O.M. Lectotype . . . . . . . . 17.0 6.3 3.7 8.0 n.o . . . . . . 37.0 21.8 47.0 59.0 Wakapatu. O.M. Benham, 1935 22.4 8.1 3.2 8.9 11.5 35.8 9.7 3.5 5.5 9.0 16.3 6.2 3.0 7.4 9.0 36.0 14.2 39.7 • 27.0 9.7 15.3 25.2 38.0 18.0 45.0 55.2 62 6 45.6 Table F. Emeus crassus. Pyramid Valley. C.M. v. Waikouaiti. Type crassus Pyramid Valley. C.M. xi Locality ? Redpath Mus. Montreal . . Pyramid Valley. C.M. xiii G. Waikouaiti. Type casuarinus Pyramid Valley. C.M. ix A. . . Pyramid Valley. C.M. xiii D. J with egg Pyramid Valley. C.M. viii C. Pyramid Valley. CM. i Pyramid Valley. C.M. x B. . . Pyramid Valley. C.M. viii B. Dunedin. O.M. Pyramid Valley. C.M. xiii E Pyramid Valley. C.M. xiii F Pyramid Valley. C.M. xii Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur length = 100. Tibia length = 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia - - 100. L P M 1) G L P M D G L P M D G P M 1) G P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. 29.4 4.5 13.2 51.9 14.5 4.2 8.7 23.6 9.3 4.8 11.9 15.2 45.0 27.9 8.1 16.7 39.0 20.5 50.3 56.6 45.5 22.1 8.5 4.7 10.2 11.8 , , , . . . . . 38.5 21.5 46.1 53.5 • • 28.7 11.9 4.5 12.6 14.1 49.3 14.0 4.3 7.7 11.8 22.0 8.5 4.5 10.2 11.9 41.5 15.7 43.8 49.3 28.4 8.7 15.6 23.9 38.6 20.6 46.3 54.0 58.0 44.5 28.9 11.6 4.5 12.8 14.1 49.3 14.0 4.4 7.7 12.0 22.0 8.4 4.5 10.2 11.9 40.0 15.5 44.2 49.0 28.4 8.8 15.6 24.3 38.6 20.6 46.5 54.0 • • 27.0 10.3 5.0 11.4 48.5 15.0 4.0 7.3 23.0 8.7 3.9 11.1 38.1 13.5 42.2 30.9 8.2 15.0 37.8 17.0 48.2 • • 28.5 11.6 4.3 12.4 14.9 48.3 13.9 4.8 7.5 12.6 21.5 8.1 4.9 10.4 12.7 40.7 14.9 43.5 52.3 28.9 10.0 15.5 26.1 37.6 23.0 48.4 59.0 58.5 44.6 28.4 11.4 4.2 12.4 14.9 , . . , . 21.5 8.0 4.9 10.5 12.7 40.1 14.9 43.6 52.4 . . . • 37.3 23.0 48.8 59.3 • ■ 48.3 14.0 4.4 7.4 12.1 , . . . . . , . . 28.9 9.1 15.3 24.9 . • • • • • 26.2 9.5 3.8 10.6 13.0 47.9 12.3 4.0 6.9 10.5 21.5 7.8 4.0 9.4 10.6 37.4 14.6 40.4 49.0 25.6 8.3 14.4 21.9 36.2 18.3 43.5 49.0 54.0 45.0 29.1 11.5 4.4 12.6 13.9 47.4 14.3 4.4 7.9 11.7 . . . . . 39.4 15.1 43.3 47.8 30.2 9.2 16.6 24.8 ■ • * • ■ • 28.0 11.6 4.3 12.4 13.9 47.2 14.2 4.4 8.0 11.7 22.9 8.6 4.8 11.2 12.2 40.0 14.8 42.7 47.9 30.1 9.4 16.9 24.8 37.6 20.8 48.9 53.3 61.5 48.3 27.4 10.4 3.9 11.6 13.1 47.3 12.9 4.0 7.6 10.9 21.8 8.1 4.4 10.3 11.4 37.8 14.2 42.2 47.7 27.3 8.5 16.1 23.0 37.3 20.1 47.2 52.3 58 0 46.0 25.3 10.2 3.8 10.6 12.0 46.7 12.0 3.9 7.2 10.7 20.4 7.6 4.5 9.2 11.3 40.5 15.1 41.9 47.7 25.7 8.3 15.4 22.9 37.2 22.0 45.1 55.4 54.2 43.6 27.0 10.4 4.2 11.6 14.0 46.2 12.3 4.6 7.6 12.0 21.3 8.3 4.6 9.9 12.1 38.4 15.5 43.0 51.8 26.7 9.9 16.4 26.0 39.0 21.6 46.5 56.8 58.5 46.1 26.9 10.4 4.2 11.4 14.0 46.3 12.4 4.5 7.6 11.9 21.3 8.3 4.7 9.9 12.2 38.8 15.7 42.5 52.2 26.8 9.7 16.4 25.7 39.0 22.0 46.5 57.2 ■ ■ 27.1 10.8 4.0 11.8 13.6 45.8 13.5 4.3 7.3 11.9 20.7 8.1 4.5 10.1 11.3 39.9 15.0 43.7 50.0 29.4 9.3 15.9 25.9 39.1 21.7 48.8 54.4 59.0 45.0 27.0 10.8 4.0 11.6 13.6 45.4 13.2 4.3 7.4 11.6 20.7 7.9 4.4 10.1 11.5 40.5 15.0 43.0 50.0 29.0 9.4 16.2 25.5 38.2 21.2 48.8 56.0 59.5 45.5 26.2 8.9 11.2 13.7 45.7 13.1 . 6.2 10.7 20.1 7.9 4.3 9.4 11.7 34.1 42.9 52.4 28.6 . 13.5 23.3 39.2 21.5 46.9 58.0 57.2 43.8 28.0 10.3 4.2 11.5 13.6 45.5 13.1 4.5 7.5 11.7 21.3 8.1 4.5 9.9 11.7 37.0 15.2 41.3 48.5 28.8 9.8 16.5 25.9 38.1 21.0 46.6 55.0 61.6 46.8 27.9 10.4 4.2 11.7 13.7 45.7 12.9 4.3 7.5 11.8 21.2 8.0 4.5 9.9 11.6 37.2 15.2 41.8 49.0 28.3 9.5 16.4 25.8 37.7 21.1 46.6 54.8 ■ ■ 27.8 10.5 4.3 11.7 14.1 45.6 13.8 4.2 7.0 11.6 21.4 7.6 4.5 10.0 11.7 37.8 15.5 42.1 50.7 30.5 9.2 15.3 25.5 35.5 21.0 46.7 54.6 61.0 46.7 27.8 10.5 4.2 11.8 14.3 45.5 13.6 4.2 7.1 11.7 21.4 7.7 4.5 10.1 11.7 37.8 15.3 42.4 51.4 29.9 9.3 15.6 25.7 36.0 21.0 46.7 54.6 • ■ 26 3 10.7 4.0 11.4 12.5 43.7 12.6 4.0 6.9 11.0 20.8 7.5 4.2 9.7 11.0 40.5 15.2 43.5 47.5 28.3 9.1 15.8 24.6 36.0 20.2 46.5 52.7 60.5 47.0 26.5 10.6 4.0 11.4 12.5 43.7 12.7 4.0 6.9 11.0 20.8 7.5 4.2 9.5 11.0 40.0 15.1 43.0 47.2 28.6 9.1 15.8 24.6 36.0 20.2 45.5 52.7 61.2 47.8 140 ► . Table E. Emeus huttonii, Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur length — 100. Tibia length — 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia — 100. L P M D G L P M D G L P M D G p M D G P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. Pyramid Valley. C.M. viii A. 24.4 9.0 3.3 9.8 11.0 39.7 11.1 3.3 6.4 9.9 18.7 6.8 3.7 8.3 9.7 37.0 13.3 40.2 46.0 28.0 8.3 16.1 25.0 36.4 19.7 44.5 52.0 62.0 47.6 Lnheld. C.M. Type compacta . . . . . 38.6 11.7 3.9 6.1 . . . . , . . 30.2 10.1 15.8 Hamilton. Hutton 1875 — max. 22.9 S.G 8.9 12.2 38.6 11.4 6.3 10.4 18.4 6.3 3.7 8.1 10 2 37.6 38.9 53.3 29.5 16.3 26.9 34.3 20.1 44.0 55.5 mean 22.9 8.4 8.9 12.1 37.5 10.9 5.6 9.8 17.1 6.2 3.5 8.1 9.3 36.7 3S.9 52.8 29.0 14.9 26.1 36.2 20.4 47.3 57.8 min. 22.9 8.2 8.9 11.9 36.8 10.7 5.1 9.1 16.9 5.7 3.2 7.9 9.5 35.8 38.9 52.0 29.1 13.9 24.7 33.7 18.9 46.8 56.2 Hamilton. O.M. Lectotype . . . . . . . . 17.0 6.3 3.7 8.0 n.o . . . . . . 37.0 21.8 47.0 59.0 Wakapatu. O.M. Benham, 1935 22.4 8.1 3.2 8.9 11.5 35.8 9.7 3.5 5.5 9.0 16.3 6.2 3.0 7.4 9.0 36.0 14.2 39.7 • 27.0 9.7 15.3 25.2 38.0 18.0 45.0 55.2 62 6 45.6 Table F. Emeus crassus. Pyramid Valley. C.M. v. Waikouaiti. Type crassus Pyramid Valley. C.M. xi Locality ? Redpath Mus. Montreal . . Pyramid Valley. C.M. xiii G. Waikouaiti. Type casuarinus Pyramid Valley. C.M. ix A. . . Pyramid Valley. C.M. xiii D. J with egg Pyramid Valley. C.M. viii C. Pyramid Valley. CM. i Pyramid Valley. C.M. x B. . . Pyramid Valley. C.M. viii B. Dunedin. O.M. Pyramid Valley. C.M. xiii E Pyramid Valley. C.M. xiii F Pyramid Valley. C.M. xii Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur length = 100. Tibia length = 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia - - 100. L P M 1) G L P M D G L P M D G P M 1) G P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. 29.4 4.5 13.2 51.9 14.5 4.2 8.7 23.6 9.3 4.8 11.9 15.2 45.0 27.9 8.1 16.7 39.0 20.5 50.3 56.6 45.5 22.1 8.5 4.7 10.2 11.8 , , , . . . . . 38.5 21.5 46.1 53.5 • • 28.7 11.9 4.5 12.6 14.1 49.3 14.0 4.3 7.7 11.8 22.0 8.5 4.5 10.2 11.9 41.5 15.7 43.8 49.3 28.4 8.7 15.6 23.9 38.6 20.6 46.3 54.0 58.0 44.5 28.9 11.6 4.5 12.8 14.1 49.3 14.0 4.4 7.7 12.0 22.0 8.4 4.5 10.2 11.9 40.0 15.5 44.2 49.0 28.4 8.8 15.6 24.3 38.6 20.6 46.5 54.0 • • 27.0 10.3 5.0 11.4 48.5 15.0 4.0 7.3 23.0 8.7 3.9 11.1 38.1 13.5 42.2 30.9 8.2 15.0 37.8 17.0 48.2 • • 28.5 11.6 4.3 12.4 14.9 48.3 13.9 4.8 7.5 12.6 21.5 8.1 4.9 10.4 12.7 40.7 14.9 43.5 52.3 28.9 10.0 15.5 26.1 37.6 23.0 48.4 59.0 58.5 44.6 28.4 11.4 4.2 12.4 14.9 , . . , . 21.5 8.0 4.9 10.5 12.7 40.1 14.9 43.6 52.4 . . . • 37.3 23.0 48.8 59.3 • ■ 48.3 14.0 4.4 7.4 12.1 , . . . . . , . . 28.9 9.1 15.3 24.9 . • • • • • 26.2 9.5 3.8 10.6 13.0 47.9 12.3 4.0 6.9 10.5 21.5 7.8 4.0 9.4 10.6 37.4 14.6 40.4 49.0 25.6 8.3 14.4 21.9 36.2 18.3 43.5 49.0 54.0 45.0 29.1 11.5 4.4 12.6 13.9 47.4 14.3 4.4 7.9 11.7 . . . . . 39.4 15.1 43.3 47.8 30.2 9.2 16.6 24.8 ■ • * • ■ • 28.0 11.6 4.3 12.4 13.9 47.2 14.2 4.4 8.0 11.7 22.9 8.6 4.8 11.2 12.2 40.0 14.8 42.7 47.9 30.1 9.4 16.9 24.8 37.6 20.8 48.9 53.3 61.5 48.3 27.4 10.4 3.9 11.6 13.1 47.3 12.9 4.0 7.6 10.9 21.8 8.1 4.4 10.3 11.4 37.8 14.2 42.2 47.7 27.3 8.5 16.1 23.0 37.3 20.1 47.2 52.3 58 0 46.0 25.3 10.2 3.8 10.6 12.0 46.7 12.0 3.9 7.2 10.7 20.4 7.6 4.5 9.2 11.3 40.5 15.1 41.9 47.7 25.7 8.3 15.4 22.9 37.2 22.0 45.1 55.4 54.2 43.6 27.0 10.4 4.2 11.6 14.0 46.2 12.3 4.6 7.6 12.0 21.3 8.3 4.6 9.9 12.1 38.4 15.5 43.0 51.8 26.7 9.9 16.4 26.0 39.0 21.6 46.5 56.8 58.5 46.1 26.9 10.4 4.2 11.4 14.0 46.3 12.4 4.5 7.6 11.9 21.3 8.3 4.7 9.9 12.2 38.8 15.7 42.5 52.2 26.8 9.7 16.4 25.7 39.0 22.0 46.5 57.2 ■ ■ 27.1 10.8 4.0 11.8 13.6 45.8 13.5 4.3 7.3 11.9 20.7 8.1 4.5 10.1 11.3 39.9 15.0 43.7 50.0 29.4 9.3 15.9 25.9 39.1 21.7 48.8 54.4 59.0 45.0 27.0 10.8 4.0 11.6 13.6 45.4 13.2 4.3 7.4 11.6 20.7 7.9 4.4 10.1 11.5 40.5 15.0 43.0 50.0 29.0 9.4 16.2 25.5 38.2 21.2 48.8 56.0 59.5 45.5 26.2 8.9 11.2 13.7 45.7 13.1 . 6.2 10.7 20.1 7.9 4.3 9.4 11.7 34.1 42.9 52.4 28.6 . 13.5 23.3 39.2 21.5 46.9 58.0 57.2 43.8 28.0 10.3 4.2 11.5 13.6 45.5 13.1 4.5 7.5 11.7 21.3 8.1 4.5 9.9 11.7 37.0 15.2 41.3 48.5 28.8 9.8 16.5 25.9 38.1 21.0 46.6 55.0 61.6 46.8 27.9 10.4 4.2 11.7 13.7 45.7 12.9 4.3 7.5 11.8 21.2 8.0 4.5 9.9 11.6 37.2 15.2 41.8 49.0 28.3 9.5 16.4 25.8 37.7 21.1 46.6 54.8 ■ ■ 27.8 10.5 4.3 11.7 14.1 45.6 13.8 4.2 7.0 11.6 21.4 7.6 4.5 10.0 11.7 37.8 15.5 42.1 50.7 30.5 9.2 15.3 25.5 35.5 21.0 46.7 54.6 61.0 46.7 27.8 10.5 4.2 11.8 14.3 45.5 13.6 4.2 7.1 11.7 21.4 7.7 4.5 10.1 11.7 37.8 15.3 42.4 51.4 29.9 9.3 15.6 25.7 36.0 21.0 46.7 54.6 • ■ 26 3 10.7 4.0 11.4 12.5 43.7 12.6 4.0 6.9 11.0 20.8 7.5 4.2 9.7 11.0 40.5 15.2 43.5 47.5 28.3 9.1 15.8 24.6 36.0 20.2 46.5 52.7 60.5 47.0 26.5 10.6 4.0 11.4 12.5 43.7 12.7 4.0 6.9 11.0 20.8 7.5 4.2 9.5 11.0 40.0 15.1 43.0 47.2 28.6 9.1 15.8 24.6 36.0 20.2 45.5 52.7 61.2 47.8 140 DIMENSIONS AND PROPORTIONS OF LEG-BONES. All measurements are from individual skeletons, except a few in lighter type. References: AM., Auckland Museum; D.M., Dominion Museum; H.B., Hawke’s Bay Museum; C.M., Canterbury Museum; O.M., Otago Museum; B.M., British Museum; W.M., Wanganui Museum. Femur. L P M D G Waikaremoana. A.M. 72 26.4 8.8 3.4 9.5 10.5 Pataua. A.M. 27.5 9.3 3.6 9.2 11.2 Glenmark. Lectotype fortis. C.M. . . . a , Mt. Arthur. A.M. 121 26.3 8.9 3.4 9.6 10.5 Mangaotaki. A.M. 184 26.0 9.1 3.8 9.6 11.5 Mangaotaki. A.M. 128 . . 1 25.8 9.0 3.6 . 11.1 25.8 8.9 3.6 9.2 , Waikaremoana. A.M. 148 24.8 8.9 3.8 8.6 11.7 Mt. Arthur. A.M. 114 .. \ 25.2 9.4 3.8 9.7 11.2 l 25.2 , 3.7 9.7 , Mangaotaki. A.M. 25.6 9.5 3.8 9.9 . Mt. Arthur. A.M. 117 .. \ 24.3 8.0 3.1 8.6 10.1 | 24.1 8.0 3.1 8.6 . Waikaremoana. A.M. 70 .. . . f 25.7 8.5 3.4 9.5 10.1 \ 25.7 8.5 3.4 9.6 10.0 Waikaremoana. A.M. 71 . . C 25.1 8.9 3.6 9.4 11.1 i 25.1 8.9 3.7 9.4 11.1 Waikaremoana. A.M. 82 . a a . 10.5 Waikaremoana. A.M. 60 . . ■ ■ \ \ 24.3 9.1 3.6 8.7 10.6 24.3 9.1 3.6 8.8 . Unlocalized: prob. individual. A.M. 24.3 9.1 3.6 8.8 Mangaotaki. A.M. 188 24.7 8.9 3.9 8.8 11.4 Poverty Bay. Type dromaeoides 23.6 8.5 3.5 8.9 10.5 Locality? Tring Mus. 23.5 8.8 3.4 10.1 ■ Collingwood. C.M. 3.4.12 23.9 7.6 3.1 8.2 9.5 Te Anga. A.M. 153 .. .. j 23.3 8.0 3.1 8.3 9.7 l 23.1 8.1 3.2 8.3 S. Is. coll Haast. ? indiv. A.M. 134 22.9 7.8 3.3 8.1 . Waikaremoana. A.M. 63 . . ( ) 24.7 7.7 3.3 8.4 10.0 24.7 7.9 3.3 8.4 ■ Awamarino. A.M. . • • ■ ■ Mangaotaki. A.M. 156 . . ■ ■ \ X Poverty Bay. Type didiformis 24.0 7.9 3.1 8.1 9.8 . . - - 10.3 Waikaremoana. A.M. 55 . . \ 24.0 8.6 3.5 9.0 \ 24.0 8.5 3.5 9.0 10.3 Waikaremoana. A.M. 78 23.5 6.9 3.2 7.6 9.9 Castle Rocks. O.M. . . • • • • \ 1 24.5 8.5 3.1 8.9 10.0 24.0 8.9 3.0 8.7 10.0 Mangaotaki. A.M. 126 22.5 8.0 3.0 8.5 9.7 Castle Rocks. C.M. 3.4.3 23.1 7.2 2.6 7.6 8.7 Mangaotaki. A.M. 151 .. ( 1 22.8 7.7 2.8 8.5 9.2 22.8 7.9 2.8 * Waikaremoana. A.M. 150 ■ • • 7.9 9.5 Mangaotaki. A.M. 51 •• f 22.7 7.5 3.0 1 Locality ? O.M. C.34.11 •• ( 21.7 21.7 8.2 8.1 3.0 3.0 7.9 8.0 10.1 9.9 Waikaremoana. A.M. 149 . . • • f ? Nuhaka. D.M. . . • • • • 1 1 Mangaotaki. A.M. 152 .. J 23.7 8.5 3.1 8.2 10.1 23.7 7.9 3.1 8.6 9.4 22.4 22.2 2.8 2.8 7.9 7.8 8.9 Waikaremoana. A.M. 89 . • \ X Waikaremoana. A.M. 66 Mangaotaki. A.M. 155 Waikaremoana, A.M. 69 . • ' j 23.0 23.0 6.9 6.9 3.1 3.1 7.5 7.4 9.3 9.3 22.7 21.5 7.6 7.5 7.7 2.8 2.9 2.7 8.2 6.7 9.0 8.6 21.1 7.6 2.8 7.8 8.6 Waikaremoana. A.M. 82 Hangatiki. A.M. 102 . . ■ ■ • ■ ■ Nelson. Type parvus. B. M... 20 0 6.6 2.6 7.3 21 .3 7.4 3.0 m . Waiau. C.M. 3.4.11 .. •• | 21.3 7.4 2.9 7.7 • Table A. Anomalcpteryx didiformis. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur length = 100. Tibia length — 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia — 100. L P M D G L P M D G P M D G P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. 43.4 11.2 3.4 6.4 9.5 . . . . . 33.2 13.0 36.1 39.7 25.8 7.9 14.6 21.8 60.7 42.7 . 3.9 6.2 10.5 21.2 6.5 3.5 9.0 9.3 33.8 13.3 33.4 40.7 9.1 14.6 24.6 30.6 16.4 42.4 43.8 64.5 49.7 a . ' a . a 20.8 6.8 3.8 9.1 ■ . . , , a 32.7 18.3 44.2 , a . 42.6 a 3.4 6.7 9.6 20.1 6.2 3.6 8.3 9.3 33.8 13.0 36.5 39.6 . 8.0 15.7 22.5 30.8 17.7 41.2 46.3 61.7 47.0 41.8 11.8 4.1 6.4 11.0 19.9 6.7 3.9 8.5 9.9 35.0 14.8 37.1 44.2 28.2 9.9 15.3 26.3 33.9 19.7 42.7 49.8 62.2 47.6 41.4 11.1 3.7 6.1 9.8 . . ■ ■ 9.4 34.8 14.1 . 43.0 26.3 8.9 14.7 23.7 , . . a a a 41.3 11.3 3.7 6.1 . 19.5 6.9 3.5 ■ • 34.7 14.1 35.6 , 27.3 8.9 14.8 . 35.5 17.9 . . 62.3 49.5 41.0 . 3.5 . 9.7 18.8 . 3.5 7.8 9.1 35.9 15.9 34.6 47.2 , 8.6 , 23.7 . 18.5 42.0 48.9 60.5 46.0 40.6 10.8 3.5 6.0 9.9 18.7 6.1 3.6 8.3 9.4 37.2 15.0 38.6 44.4 26.6 8.6 14.7 24.4 32.5 19.4 44.3 50.1 62.2 46.3 40.5 11.0 3.6 6.0 18.6 6.1 3.6 8.3 ■ . 14.4 38.6 , 27.1 9.0 14.9 * 32.5 19.5 44.5 a a a 40.1 12.2 3.7 6.2 a 19.5 7.0 3.7 9.1 37.1 15.0 38.6 , 30.4 9.2 15.5 , 36.2 18.8 46.6 a 63.8 43.6 39.8 10.6 3.4 5.7 9.1 18.8 5.9 3.3 7.6 8.7 32.9 12.7 35.3 42.0 26.6 8.5 14.3 22.9 31.3 17.6 40.5 46.2 61.8 47.6 39.6 10.3 3.4 5.6 . 18.9 5.9 3.3 7.6 . 33.4 13.0 35.6 , 26.1 8.5 14.2 31.3 17.5 40.4 * a a 39.6 11.7 3.3 6.1 9.1 19.9 6.4 3.3 8.2 8.6 32.8 13.2 37.0 39.2 29.4 8.3 15.3 22.6 32.2 16.8 41.4 43.2 65.0 50.0 39.5 11.6 3.2 6.0 9.0 19.8 6.4 3.3 8.3 8.7 32.8 13.2 37.3 38.8 29.4 8.2 15.2 22.7 32.3 16.8 41.8 43.9 65.0 50.0 39.3 11.2 3.7 6.1 10.2 18.7 6.4 3.7 8.5 9.5 35.3 14.3 37.2 44.1 28.4 9.5 15.6 26.5 34.2 19.6 45.2 50.7 64.0 47.5 39.2 11.4 3.7 6.1 10.2 18.9 6.4 3.7 8.5 9.6 35.4 14.5 37.9 44.2 28.9 9.6 15.6 26.1 33.9 19.4 44.7 50.6 . a 39.0 . 3.2 6.1 9.1 19.3 6.2 3.4 8.1 8.6 , . . . . 8.0 15.6 23.3 32.2 17.6 42.0 44.6 a 49.3 38.6 10.5 3.0 6.2 8.3 18.7 6.4 3.4 8.4 8.6 37.5 15.0 35.8 44.0 27.2 7.9 16.1 21.5 34.1 18.0 44.1 46.0 63.6 49.0 38.2 10.5 3.0 6.0 . 18.7 6.4 3.3 8.3 . 37.0 14.8 36.2 . 27.4 7.9 15.7 . 34.3 17.8 45.0 ■ • 38.6 11.2 2.9 5.8 , 16.8 . 3.5 8.0 . 37.0 14.8 36.2 . 29.0 7.5 14.2 . a 20.7 47.9 - 62.9 43.5 38.0 10.2 2.5 5.7 9.5 19.0 6.3 3.3 8.5 8.6 36.2 15.7 35.8 46.1 26.8 6.7 15.0 25.0 33.1 17.3 45.0 45.3 65.0 50.0 . . , . . . . . . . 35.8 14.8 37.8 44.4 a a . a a . • a a • 38.0 10.0 3.4 5.5 17.5 6.2 3.6 7.9 a 37.4 14.6 43.0 , 26.3 8.9 14.4 a 35.6 20.7 45.4 a 61.8 41.6 38.1 9.7 3.3 9.0 18.1 5.7 3.1 7.5 8.2 30.7 12.4 32.9 38.2 25.6 8.6 a 23.6 31.5 17.4 41.5 45.6 62.7 47.5 38.0 9.8 3.5 6.2 9.5 18.1 6.2 3.1 7.9 8.1 34.2 13.5 35.6 , 25.8 9.2 16.4 25.3 34.1 16.9 43.5 44.6 61.3 47.6 . , 18.2 6.3 3.1 8.0 . 35.0 13.8 35.9 , . a a 34.6 16.9 43.9 . a ■ 38.0 9.9 3.3 5.5 18.6 6.0 3.2 8.0 a 34.1 14.5 38.2 a 26.0 8.8 14.4 32.2 17.2 43.0 . 60.2 49.0 3.4 5.7 8.9 17.3 6.0 3.2 , 8.3 31.3 13.3 33.9 40.3 . a a a 34.6 18.5 • 47.8 • ■ 17.3 5.7 3.2 7.5 . 31.4 13.3 34.2 . a a . a a 18.3 42.8 a a ■ 37.8 9.6 3.2 5.8 18.1 6.2 3.4 8.0 , , . . a 32.5 8.4 15.4 a 34.2 19.0 44.4 ■ • 47.5 37.7 10.0 3.3 8.9 17.7 5.7 3.1 7.6 8.4 32.9 13.0 33.7 40.7 26.6 8.8 a 23.6 32.5 17.5 42.9 47.5 63.6 47.3 37.4 10.1 3.3 5.4 a . . , . . a 27.0 8.9 14.4 . a • • ■ • ■ 17.5 5.7 3.2 7.8 . , . a a . a . . 32.8 18.2 44.7 ■ ■ • 37.5 10.8 3.4 5.8 9.0 16.9 6.1 3.3 7.4 8.5 35.2 14.5 37.4 42.9 28.9 9.0 15.5 24.0 35.1 19.3 43.6 50.1 64.1 45.2 37.4 10.6 3.3 5.8 9.0 16.9 6.0 3.3 7.4 8.5 35.7 14.7 37.4 42.9 28.4 8.8 15.6 24.0 35.5 19.5 43.7 50.0 • • 37.4 10.0 3.5 5.8 9.2 18.0 6.2 3.2 8.0 8.0 29.3 13.4 32.3 42.1 26.6 9.3 15.6 24.6 34.4 17.6 44.5 44.5 62.9 48.1 36.5 9.2 3.1 5.6 9.0 19.0 5.6 3.0 7.4 8.0 34.6 12.6 36.3 40.8 25.2 8.6 15.3 24.6 29.3 15.8 39.0 42.1 65.7 52.0 36.0 9.3 3.1 5.3 , 18.7 5.6 3.0 7.5 . 37.0 12.6 36.0 41.7 25.9 8.6 14.8 • 30.1 16.0 40.1 * • ■ 36.5 10.3 3.3 5.5 9.2 35.7 13.4 38.3 43.2 28.1 9.1 15.0 25.2 • • ■ ■ 61.7 • 36.3 8.8 3.0 5.2 8.2 16.1 5.4 3.0 7.1 7.9 31.2 11.2 32.8 37.6 24.4 8.4 14.3 22.8 33.5 18.6 44.0 49.0 63.7 44.3 36.1 9.9 3.1 5.3 8.4 17.5 5.6 2.9 7.3 7.6 34.0 12.7 . 40.4 27.4 8.5 14.6 23.3 32.0 16.7 41.7 43.5 63.1 48.4 36.1 9.9 3.0 5.2 17.5 5.6 2.9 7.4 34.6 12.4 37.2 . 27.4 8.3 14.5 ■ 32.0 16.7 41.7 ■ • 36.1 9.4 3.0 5.5 8.1 17.7 5.8 2.9 7.2 7.6 , . . . 26.1 8.2 15.3 22.4 33.6 16.6 40.7 43.0 • 49.0 36.0 9.3 3.0 5.0 8.3 17.0 5.4 3.2 7.3 8.2 32.8 13.2 34.5 41.8 25.9 8.5 13.8 23.1 32.0 19.0 43.2 48.3 61.1 47.2 35.9 9.4 3.1 5.1 17.1 5.4 3.3 7.2 . . . 26.1 8.6 14.2 • 31.8 19.0 42.1 • • 36.0 9.4 3.2 5.3 8.9 16.2 6.0 3.4 6.8 8.7 37.8 14.0 36.6 46.5 26.1 8.9 14.7 24.7 37.0 18.7 42.2 53.7 60.3 45.2 35.9 9.3 3.2 5.4 8.8 16.2 5.9 3.4 6.9 8.6 37.3 13.9 36.8 45.5 25.9 8.9 15.0 24.5 37.0 18.7 42.5 53.6 * 35.9 9.7 3.1 5.5 8.6 17.3 5.8 3.1 7.8 8.2 36.0 13.2 34.7 43.1 25.9 8.7 15.3 24.0 33.8 18.1 45.1 47.4 66.0 48.0 35.8 9.7 3.1 5.5 17.3 5.8 3.1 7.7 . . - 27.1 8.8 15.4 • 33.8 18.1 45.1 • • 35.2 9.8 3.0 5.9 8.3 17.5 6.3 3.2 7.5 8.1 33.3 13.2 36.0 39.8 27.9 8.9 16.7 23.6 36.0 18.0 43.1 46.2 67.3 49.7 35.5 10.1 3.1 5.9 8.4 17.5 6.2 3.1 7.5 8.1 . . - 28.4 8.7 16.6 23.7 35.5 17.9 42.8 46.2 • • 35.1 9.6 2.9 5.3 8.2 16.1 5.4 3.0 7.5 7.9 12.7 35.2 39.8 27.3 8.3 15.1 23.4 33.4 18.8 46.6 44.0 64.0 46.3 34.9 2.9 5.3 16.2 5.4 3.1 7.4 12.8 35.1 . • 8.2 15.1 ■ 33.4 19.0 45.5 • ■ ■ 34.9 9.2 3.1 5.2 8.2 16.6 5.4 3.0 6.9 7.6 30.0 13.5 32.6 40.5 26.2 8.7 15.2 23.4 32.5 17.8 41.6 45.7 65.8 47.6 34.9 3.1 5.2 8.2 30.0 13.5 32.2 40.5 • 8.7 15.2 23.4 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 34.7 9.6 2.8 5.6 7.8 17.7 5.9 3.1 7.8 8.0 33.2 12.5 36.1 39.6 27.7 8.1 16.1 22.5 33.1 17.2 43.9 45.0 65.3 51.0 16.3 5.4 3.0 6.8 34.8 13.7 31.1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 33.4 18.6 40.8 • • • 34.3 9.0 2.7 4.9 7.7 15.9 5.0 2.8 6.7 7.4 a . • 26.3 8.0 14.1 22.4 31.6 17.3 42.1 46.4 • * 34.3 9.0 2.7 4.9 7.7 15.9 5.0 2.8 6.8 7.4 36.2 13.1 36.7 40.7 26.3 8.0 14.1 22.4 31.5 17.7 42.5 46.3 61. 5 46.5 6.4 14.4 32.0 17.6 41.9 49.8 33.5 2.1 4.8 16.7 5.3 2.9 7.0 . a • • * 32.2 19.2 44.4 16.6 5.3 3.2 7.4 , ■ • * • 32.5 19.1 44.1 32.7 * 4.6 16.5 15.9 5.4 4.6 3.2 2.7 7.3 7.8 * 32.6 12.8 36.1 . a . 14.0 28.8 17.0 49.0 61.7 48.6 32.3 8.7 2.8 4.9 15.7 5.1 3.0 6.6 34.7 14.0 . ■ 27.1 8.7 15.3 ■ 32.5 19.1 42.0 ■ 65.3 48.6 32.3 9.0 2.8 5.0 a 15.8 5.1 3.0 6.6 ■ 34.0 13.8 36.0 ■ 27.8 8.7 1 5.3 * 32.4 19.0 40.5 • . ' I Table G. (a) Eury apteryx gravis. Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur length ; 100. Tibia length — 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia — 100. L P M D G L P M D G L P M D G P M D G P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. Riverton. O.M. . . 31.5 12.3 4.9 13.0 13.7 52.0 15.0 4.8 8.2 13.5 21.7 8.9 5.5 11.8 13.6 39.3 15.8 41.5 53.2 28.8 9.3 15.8 26.0 41.2 25.3 54.4 62.6 60.0 42.0 Mt. Arthur. A.M. 30.4 12.3 4.8 12.9 16.6 . . . , 22.7 9.2 5.4 12.2 14.5 Stewart Is. O.M. Benham 1910 27.4 11.3 4.8 12.7 15.5 51.2 14.5 4.8 8.9 13.7 22.2 9.0 4.8 11.5 13.2 41.3 17.5 46.4 56.6 28.3 9.4 17.4 26.8 40.5 21.6 51.8 59.4 54.0 43.0 Pyramid Valley. C.M. xx D. . . 29.7 12.7 5.2 13.5 . 50.6 15.3 4.8 8.5 . 21.8 8.9 5.4 12.1 42.7 17.5 45.4 , 30.2 9.5 16.8 40.8 24.7 55.5 58.7 43.1 Castle Pt. C.M. Type kuranui 26.8 9.9 4.7 12.2 15.2 47.0 14.6 4.6 7.9 13.2 20.5 9.0 4.9 10.8 12.2 36.9 17.5 45.5 56.3 31.0 9.8 16.8 28.1 42.6 23.4 52.5 59.4 57.0 43.0 Waikaremoana. A.M. 388 . . . • . 47.0 13.5 4.7 7.9 12.5 Kakanui. B. M. Type . . •• t 27.9 10.5 4.3 11.7 14.4 43.8 13.5 4.1 7.9 12.1 | 19.7 8.1 5.3 10.6 12.7 37.6 15.4 41.7 51.5 30.9 9.3 18.0 27.4 j 41.3 26.9 53.7 64.6 64.0 45.0 Type gravipes, measured G.A. •• \ * ■ ■ ■ * ■ ' ■ l 19.6 8.3 5.2 10.5 12.7 * ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ l 42.3 26.7 53.3 65.0 ■ ■ Table G. (b) Eury apteryx geranoides. Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur leng th — 100. Tibia length = 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia — 100. I, P M D C. L P M D G L P M D C. P M D G I> M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. Tom Bowling Bay. A.M. 37 . . 23.1 9.0 4.1 10.3 41.1 3.8 6.8 17.5 7.3 4.1 8.5 10.1 39.0 17.8 44.6 9.2 16.5 41.7 23.4 48.5 57.7 56.0 42.5 Tom Bowling Bay. A.M. 32 . . 22.0 9.0 4.2 9.5 . 38.5 11.0 3.6 6.0 . . . . . 40.9 19.3 43.1 . 28.5 9.4 15.3 . . • • • 57.1 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 182 21.7 7.9 3.2 8.6 . 37.7 10.2 2.9 5.7 16.4 6.1 3.3 7.9 . 36.4 14.8 39.8 27.0 8.1 15.2 • 37.0 20.0 48.2 57.5 43.5 Te Rangatapu. B.M. 21793; Lyd. 263 ■ ■ • 36.5 10.9 4.0 6.1 * ■ * * ’ • * 29.8 10.9 16.7 ' ' . Table H. Euryapteryx exilis. Doubtless Bay. A.M. 6 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 169 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 20 Type. A. geranoides Lyd. (C.F.B. 289, B.M. 21789x) . D. geranoides Owen 1866b (B.M. 21706, Lyd. 289) Doubtless Bay. A.M. 171.2 . . Doubtless Bay. A.M. 171.3 .. Wangaebu. W.M. Type Measured G.A. Doubtless Bay. A.M. 167 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 3 Waiotapu. A.M. 83 ( } i l 1 l s l 1 i l Doubtless Doubtless Doubtless Doubtless Doubtless Doubtless Bay. A.M. Bay. A.M. Bay. A.M. Bay. A.M. Bay. A.M. Bay. A.M. 171.1 •• 377 157 172 373 170 .. • • \ Doubtless Bay. A.M. 160 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 360 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 168 . . j Doubtless Bay. A.M. 362 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 382 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 372 Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. L P M D G L P M D G L P M D G 20.5 7.9 3.4 8.1 9.9 34.7 9.5 3.0 5.6 8.2 15.2 5.8 3.1 7.1 7.9 20.5 8.0 3.4 8.3 . 34.4 9.6 3.1 5.4 . 15.2 5.9 3.1 7.1 ■ 20.4 7.9 o CO 8.1 9.4 34.5 9.5 3.0 5.3 7.7 14.9 6.0 3.1 6.2 8.0 . . . a a 15.1 6.0 3.1 6.2 • 20.9 6.7 3.1 8.1 9.3 34.5 9.6 3.0 5.1 7.8 ■ • * ■ . . . > . 34.4 10.3 3.1 5.7 ■ ■ ■ • ■ > . 15.2 5.9 3.4 7.5 . 19.0 7.2 3.1 7.5 9.2 34.4 9.3 CO o - 7.8 ■ • ■ 19.8 . 3.2 8.1 9.6 34.3 9.1 2.8 • 7.4 ■ - • ■ 19.7 8.0 3.3 8.1 . • . - • ■ • * * * 20.0 7.3 2.8 7.8 9.6 34.1 9.2 2.8 4.8 8.2 14.2 5.7 3.1 6.7 7.9 20.0 7.2 2.8 7.8 9.6 34.3 9.1 2.8 4.8 8.0 14.2 5.7 3.1 6.8 7.9 20.3 7.8 3.3 8.6 9.7 34.0 9.8 2.9 5.8 7.7 15.7 6.5 3.3 7.5 8.2 20.3 7.8 3.3 8.5 . 33.8 9.9 2.9 5.8 • 15.5 6.5 3.3 7.4 19.7 7.9 3.1 8.3 9.4 33.7 9.8 2.8 5.6 7.4 14.7 6.0 3.0 • 7.5 19.7 7.9 3.2 8.2 , 33.5 9.8 2.8 5.5 ■ 14.8 6.0 3.0 7.0 ■ 20.3 7.9 3.4 8.0 10.2 33.5 > 3.0 ■ 8.2 15.0 5.6 3.2 7.0 8.3 20 3 7.9 3.3 10.1 . 10.0 3.0 5.3 8.2 • ■ ■ ■ ■ 33.5 9.6 o CO a 8.2 15.4 . 3.5 7.2 8.7 20 6 8.4 3.4 8.5 10.0 33.5 9.8 2.9 5.7 8.0 15.3 6.1 3.2 7.4 8.1 3.4 8.0 9.9 33.4 9.7 2.9 5.3 7.7 14.9 5.8 3.2 7.6 8.0 19 7 7.8 3.0 7.9 9.5 33.4 9.1 2.8 - 7.6 14.7 5.9 3.2 7.2 8.0 19 R 7.7 3.0 7.9 9.5 33.1 9.4 2.9 5.2 7.7 15.0 5.5 2.9 6.5 7.7 19 7.5 8.0 9.4 33.0 9.1 2.8 5.1 7.4 14.5 5.7 3.0 6.9 7.7 19.6 7.6 3.0 8.0 . . ■ • • • 14.5 5.7 3.1 7.0 ■ 19 6 7.7 3.0 8.0 9.2 32.8 9.4 2.9 5.2 7.5 • ■ ‘ ■ * 19.9 7.3 3.0 8.1 9.1 32.6 9.0 2.7 5.4 7.3 14.3 5.7 3.1 6.7 7.9 19 5 7.1 3.1 7.8 9.5 32.5 9.5 2.8 5.0 7.5 • ■ ■ • ■ 19.5 7.0 3.1 9.5 . . . ■ • 14.3 5.5 3.2 7.4 8.2 18 6 7.4 3.0 7.6 8.5 31.9 8.9 2.7 5.5 7.1 14.3 5.8 • 7.1 ■ 30.6 8.8 2.7 5.4 7.3 14.4 5.9 3.1 6.7 7.8 18.6 7.2 3.2 7.9 9.5 30.5 8.7 2.6 5.0 7.1 • * ’ Femur length — 100. Tibia length — 100. Metatarsus len gth — 100. Tibia = 100. P M D G P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. 38.5 16.5 39.5 48.4 27.3 8.6 16.1 23.6 38.0 20.0 45.7 51.9 59.0 43.9 39.0 16.5 40.7 , 27.8 9.0 15.6 . 38.6 20.1 46.4 ■ , 38.7 14.9 40.0 46.1 27.5 8.6 15.3 22.3 39.9 20.7 41.2 53.6 59.1 43.2 , , a 39.9 20.7 40.8 . ■ 32.1 14.8 38.8 44.0 27.8 8.6 14.9 22.6 • ■ • • 60.5 • * • • ■ 30.0 9.1 16.5 • • • ■ ■ • ■ 38.8 22.4 49.4 , . . 38.9 16.3 39.4 48.5 27.0 8.5 , 24.6 . ■ • • 55.2 ■ , 16.4 40.9 48.5 26.6 8.3 • 21.6 ■ • • ■ 57.7 40.6 16.7 41.1 , a . . . ■ • • • • 36.5 14.2 39.1 48.2 27.0 8.0 14.0 24.0 40.0 22.0 46.9 55.1 58.7 41.7 36.0 14.2 39.0 48.2 26.5 8.0 14.0 23.4 39.8 22.0 47.9 55.6 • ■ 38.3 16.4 42.2 47.7 28.9 8.5 17.0 22.6 41.4 21.3 47.7 52.2 60.0 48.8 38.3 16.4 41.8 29.4 8.6 17.1 41.9 21.6 47.6 • • 40.1 15.7 42.0 47.5 29.1 8.4 16.6 21.9 40.8 20.7 • 50.9 58.4 43.6 40.1 16.2 41.8 29.3 8.4 16.3 . 40.7 20.6 47.3 ■ • ■ 38.8 16.6 39.5 50.2 . 8.9 • 24.5 37.3 21.5 46.6 55.4 60.7 44.7 38.8 16.7 50.0 , . . . • • ■ ■ • ■ 28.6 8.9 . 24.5 a 22.5 . 56.3 O 46.1 40.8 16.5 41.3 48.5 29.4 8.8 17.0 23.8 39.9 20.9 43.4 53.0 61.5 45.6 29.0 8.7 15.9 23.0 39.0 21.8 51.2 53.7 . 44.5 39.6 15.4 40.3 43.3 27.3 8.5 . 22.8 40.0 21.5 49.0 53.7 59.0 44.0 38.9 15.4 39.9 48.0 28.4 8.8 15.7 23.2 36.5 19.6 43.3 51.3 59.8 45.3 38.2 40.8 48.0 27.6 8.4 15.6 22.4 39.3 21.0 47.7 53.2 59 4 43.9 38.7 15.5 40.8 * , . . ■ 39.5 21.1 48.1 ■ ■ ■ 39.3 15.5 41.1 47.0 28.0 8.9 15.8 22.9 • • ■ ■ 59.7 ■ 36.7 15.1 40.7 45.8 27.8 8.3 16.6 22.4 39.8 21.7 46.8 55.2 61.0 43.9 36.8 15.5 40.0 48.8 29.2 8.6 15.5 23.1 • • ■ ■ 62.0 44.0 36.0 15.5 48.8 , a a 38.4 22.4 51.7 57.2 ■ • 39.8 16.1 40.8 45.7 27.9 8.5 17.2 22.2 40.6 . 49.7 • 58 3 44.7 28.9 8.9 17.6 23.8 41.0 21.5 46.5 54.2 • 45.6 38.8 17.2 42.5 51.0 28.6 8.5 16.4 23.2 61.0 141 ► I Table I. Eury apteryx curtus. Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur length — 100. Tibia length 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia = 100. L P M D G L P M D G L P M D G P M D G P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. Doubtless Bay. A.M. 4 17.9 17.9 6.4 2.7 2.7 7.0 7.0 7.8 28.6 28.6 8.1 8.1 2.4 4.8 4.6 6.4 13.6 5.2 2.8 6.4 7.3 35.5 14.9 14.9 38.7 38.7 44.0 27.9 28.1 8.4 16.7 15.9 22.1 37.9 20.6 47.0 53.8 62.2 47.0 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 23 •• J 1 17.8 17.8 6.4 6.4 2.6 2.6 7.0 7.8 28.9 8.0 2.3 4.7 6.4 13.9 13.9 5.1 5.1 2.9 6.5 6.5 7.3 35.5 35.9 14.5 14.5 39.2 43.7 27.7 8.2 16.4 22.2 36.7 36.4 20.6 46.8 46.6 52.5 62.1 48.0 North Island. Type curtus ■ • . . . 28.6 8.2 . 5.1 7.4 , . m , 28.8 . 17.8 25.8 a a . . . a Doubtless Bay. A.M. 177 17.7 6.4 2.7 7.0 8.1 28.4 7.7 2.4 4.6 6.8 . a 36.2 15.2 39.5 45.7 27.1 8.4 16.3 24.0 . , . a 62.7 . Doubtless Bay. A.M. 23a 17.1 . 2.6 6.7 8.0 28.3 7.7 . 4.6 6.6 11.2 4.5 2.3 5.2 6.1 15.5 39.2 46.7 27.3 . 16.2 23.7 40.9 21.2 46.9 54.5 60.3 39.2 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 381 18.0 6.6 2.9 7.0 8.7 28.1 8.0 2.4 4.5 6.6 . 36.6 16.1 38.0 43.3 28.5 8.7 16.0 23.5 a • . . 64.0 . Doubtless Bay. A.M. 370 •• i 1 16.9 16.7 6.5 6.4 2.8 2.8 7.0 6.9 8.6 8.5 27.5 27.4 7.7 7.8 2.5 2.4 4.4 4.4 6.5 6.4 12.9 12.9 5.1 5.1 2.8 2.8 6.2 6.2 7.1 7.1 38.2 38.8 16.8 16.7 41.0 41.4 50.9 50.7 28.0 28.5 9.4 9.3 16.1 16.2 23.6 23.4 39.5 39.5 21.8 21.8 48.0 48.0 55.0 55.0 61.5 61.7 47.0 47.0 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 173 16.7 6.2 2.5 6.5 7.3 27.0 . 2.1 4.5 5.7 , . m 7.0 37.1 15.0 38.9 43.7 . 7.9 16.6 21.2 . . . . 59.2 • Doubtless Bay. A.M. 161 •• ( l 16.9 16.9 • 2.4 2.5 6.7 6.7 7.5 26.8 26.8 7.5 2.2 2.2 4.3 4.3 6.0 12.6 4.8 2.5 5.9 6.4 • 14.3 14.3 39.8 39.8 44.3 27.9 8.3 8.1 16.1 16.1 22.4 37.9 19.6 46.8 50.7 63.2 47.0 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 355 16.7 6.2 2.4 6.7 7.3 26.7 .7.6 2.2 4.4 5.9 12.8 4.9 2.6 5.9 6.7 37.1 14.2 40.3 43.7 28.5 8.4 16.5 22.1 38.3 20.6 46.1 52.4 62.5 48.0 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 368 16.8 6.0 2.6 6.5 7.6 26.6 7.7 2.4 4.4 6.3 12.5 4.6 2.8 6.1 7.2 35.7 15.5 38.7 45.2 28.9 9.0 16.5 24.0 36.8 22.4 48.8 57.7 63.2 47.0 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 5 •• j l 16.2 16.2 6.0 5.8 5.7 2.4 2.4 6.4 6.4 7.4 7.3 26.5 26.5 26.5 7.1 7.1 7.4 2.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 6.3 6.5 12.5 12.5 4.7 4.7 2.6 5.7 5.7 6,8 37.0 35.4 14.6 14.8 39.8 39.5 45.1 26.7 26.5 28.3 8.8 16.0 16.0 15.9 23.8 24.6 38.0 38.0 21.0 46.0 46.0 54.4 61.1 47.1 Doubtless Bay. Odd bones 15.8 4.8 2.5 6.3 7.3 26.4 7.6 2.2 4.3 5.9 12.4 4.8 2.5 5.7 6.3 • ■ ■ ■ • • ■ • • * • * Doubtless Bay. Odd bones 15.7 5.1 2.3 5.4 6.8 26.3 7.5 2.2 4.4 5.9 12.3 4.8 2.5 5.8 6.2 ■ ■ • • ■ ■ ■ • • * * • * Bay. Odd bones 15.6 5.5 2.4 6.1 7.3 26.2 7.1 2.1 4.2 5.9 12.2 4.2 2.2 5.5 6.5 ■ ■ • • • • ■ • * 45.0 51.3 ' 46.5 Bay. A.M. 370a . . 25.6 6.7 2.1 3.8 5.7 11.9 4.4 2.4 5.3 6.1 . • • 26.4 8.4 14.8 22.3 37.0 20.2 58.6 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 191 •• f 1 14.9 14.9 5.1 5.1 2.1 2.1 5.7 5.7 6.8 25.4 25.2 6.7 6.7 2.0 2.0 3.7 3.7 5.7 11.1 11.0 3.9 4.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 5.5 34.5 34.4 14.1 14.2 38.2 38.4 45.7 26.3 26.5 8.1 8.1 14.6 14.6 22.4 35.1 35.7 18.0 18.3 45.0 45.2 49.0 43.6 Bay. A.M. 180 Bay. A.M. 174 Bay. A.M. 176 Bay. A.M. 378 16.0 5.9 2.5 7.5 25.2 7.1 2.4 4.2 6.3 12.3 4.6 2.6 5.7 6.7 36.7 15.6 . 47.0 28.2 9.5 16.6 25.0 37.2 20.8 46. 7 54.7 63.4 49.0 Doubtless Doubtless Doubtless 15.3 14.9 1 5.5 2.5 2.2 6.0 5.8 7.5 7.5 6.9 24.9 24.8 24.8 7.0 7.2 6.6 2.0 2.1 2.0 4.1 4.2 4.0 5.6 5.9 5.4 12.0 12.0 11.4 4.6 4.5 4.4 2.0 2.4 2.2 5.6 5.7 5.1 6.4 6.2 5.5 36.9 16.3 15.1 39.0 38.9 49.0 46.3 28.1 29.2 26.6 8.2 8.3 8.1 16.6 17.1 16.1 22.5 23.8 21.8 38.1 38.0 38.6 21.0 19.7 19.3 46.4 47.7 45.2 53.3 51.7 48.2 61 .4 60.6 48.1 48.3 46.3 Table J. Dinornis novae-zealandiae. Single bones, maxima Poverty Bay. Type novae-zealandiae.. Poverty Bay. Owen 1843c, part Mangaotaki. A.M. 225 Doubtless Bay. A.M. 22 Waikaremoana. A.M. 53 Wanganui. A.M. 328 Wanganui. A.M. 328 Haupouri. H.B. Mus. . . Waikaremoana. A.M. 103 Karamu, prob. indiv. A.M. Single bones, minima . . L 28.5 27.9 28.5 27.8 27.6 27.5 25.0 26.5 25.0 Femur. M D 10.6 10.8 10.6 9.6 9.5 9.4 4.0 4.4 3.9 4.2 4.1 3.6 4.3 10.8 11.8 11.0 9.9 10.0 9.5 10.0 (Haupouri) Tibia. G (Mangaotaki) L P M D G 56.0 (Doubtless Bay) 14.0 13.5 13.3 12.2 12.2 11.4 12.9 56.0 13.5 3.8 7.3 10.6 55.6 13.7 3.9 7.3 10.7 52.6 12.3 3.7 6.7 10.4 52.6 12.3 3.7 6.7 10.3 52.0 11.5 3.5 6.3 9.9 51.1 11.2 3.5 7.2 10.2 48.4 10.2 3.6 6.5 9.9 4S.4 (Karamu) L 31.7 30.5 30.1 31.3 28.2 28.0 28.4 27.2 27.0 28.5 25.6 24.6 Metatarsus. 8.7 8.1 8.2 8.1 7.3 7.5 6.7 6.5 7.1 7.3 7.0 6.6 M D 3.9 4.0 3.5 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.7 3.4 3.3 3.0 3.2 10.2 9.7 10.5 10.4 9.7 9.6 8.7 7.9 9.1 9.7 8.5 Femur len gth — 100. Tibia length = 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia — 100. G P M D G P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. 10.2 27.6 12.0 32.2 32.4 . . 11.2 , . . . . • 26.5 12.8 31.9 36.7 ■ * 37.8 14.3 38.7 50.0 . a a . • ■ • • * 10.9 38.0 15.7 41.3 47.3 . a . 27.2 13.4 34.8 36.2 • • 9.7 38.1 14.0 37.0 47.8 24.2 6.8 13.0 18.9 25.8 11.1 33.1 31.0 49.5 56.0 22.8 7.2 13.1 19.3 . . • ■ • 9.1 34.6 15.1 35.9 44.2 23.4 7.0 12.7 19.8 25.9 10.9 34.3 32.3 52.2 53.5 9.0 34.6 15.0 36.5 44.4 23.4 7.0 12.7 19.6 26.7 11.2 34.1 32.1 • 8 1 90 Q Ao. o 10.4 33.2 28.4 - • 7 7 24.1 9.9 29.0 28.3 ■ ■ 9.3 14.6 38.0 45.6 22.1 6.7 12.2 19.1 26.3 12.6 33.7 34.4 48.0 52.0 9.2 35.4 16.1 37.7 48.7 21.9 6.9 14.5 20.0 25.6 11.5 33.9 32.2 52.0 56.0 8.8 21.1 7.4 13.4 20.5 27.3 11.6 33.0 34.8 ■ 52.0 9.0 • ■ ■ ■ • • • • 26.8 13.2 OO7 OO. 1 36.6 142 . Table K. Dinornis ingens. Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur length — 100. Tibia length HZ 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia = 100. L p M D G L P M D G L P M D G P M D G P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. Poverty Bay. Type ingens . . m 74.3 16.6 4.9 9.1 22.2 6.6 12.3 Mangaotaki. A.M. 346 34.7 12.8 5.4 13.3 . 74.0 16.1 5.6 9.9 . . 37.2 15.5 38.7 21.8 7.5 13.3 47.0 Hastings. A.M. 113 34.0 12.4 4.5 13.5 15.6 73.7 15.8 4.8 9.5 12.9 41.7 9.8 4.1 12.5 11.4 36.4 12.9 40.0 45.8 21.4 6.5 12.8 17.5 23.6 9.9 30.0 27.4 46.1 56.5 Poverty Bay. Type firmus 36.8 ■ . . 19.0 73.7 . . . 15.9 41.2 14.2 51.6 21.6 34.5 49.9 56.0 Mangaotaki. A.M. 123 33.2 12.0 4.7 14.2 15.8 73.4 16.4 5.1 10.5 13.2 , 36.0 14.0 42.7 47.5 22.3 6.9 14.3 18.0 m 45.3 North Island. A.M. 262 35.8 13.2 5.4 15.2 18.3 73.0 17.3 5.4 9.6 15.2 41.1 10.4 5.1 12.8 14.5 36.5 15.1 41.5 51.1 23.7 7.4 12.9 20.6 25.2 12.5 31.1 35.3 49.0 56.2 Kaiwaka. H.B. . . 33.5 . 5.4 13.5 16.5 72.0 15.3 5.4 8.9 15.1 38.5 9.7 4.3 11.3 12.7 16.1 38.2 46.7 21.3 7.3 12.4 21.0 27.8 11.2 29.3 33.0 46.5 53.5 Waikaremoana. A.M. 80 34.3 11.7 5.6 13.5 18.2 71.9 15.0 5.3 9.3 15.0 . . . 34.1 16.3 39.3 53.0 20.2 7.4 12.9 20.8 . . . . 47.7 . Waikaremoana. A.M. 64 35.0 13.1 6.0 14.0 17.6 71.2 16.2 5.0 9.5 14.4 . . 37.4 17.0 40.0 50.3 22.8 7.1 13.3 20.2 . . . . 49.2 . Waikaremoana. A.M. 96 . . • • { 33.4 12.3 5.4 13.3 16.0 67.9 15.6 5.3 9.1 14.3 37.5 9.8 4.4 11.5 12.7 36.8 13.1 39.8 49.0 22.9 7.9 13.4 21.0 26.2 11.8 31.6 34.0 49.2 55.2 1 . . . . 67.6 16.0 5.3 9.0 . , . . . . 23.6 7.9 13.3 . . ■ . . . . Patangata. A.M. 263 . . . . 67.4 14.5 4.6 8.6 12.7 35.4 8.7 3.7 11.0 10.4 , . . . 21.5 6.8 12.7 18.8 24.6 10.4 31.1 29.4 - 52.5 Waikaremoana. D.M. . . 35.0 12.3 5.1 14.2 16.1 66.7 15.0 4.8 9.0 12.9 37.0 9.3 4.1 12.6 12.0 35.1 14.6 40.6 46.0 22.4 7.2 13.5 19.3 25.2 11.1 34.0 32.4 52.5 55.4 Mangaotaki. A.M. 183 .. ■ ■ \ 31.5 . 4.4 13.6 15.8 66.0 . 5.3 9.2 14.3 34.9 10.2 4.4 11.6 12.0 . 14.1 43.2 50.2 . 8.1 13.8 21.7 29.2 12.6 33.1 34.4 | 47.8 53.0 ) . 66.0 15.6 5.3 9.2 14.2 34.9 10.2 4.4 11.6 12.0 . . . . 23.6 8.1 13.8 21.5 29.2 12.6 33.1 34.4 \ - • Waikaremoana. A.M. 61 o rr CO 5.0 12.7 15.0 66.0 14.0 4.5 8.4 12.4 36.7 9.3 3.8 11.0 10.9 14.7 37.5 44.1 21.2 6.8 12.7 18.8 25.3 10.9 30.0 29.7 51.5 55.6 North Island. Type gracilis . . • * * * ‘ * * * 33.0 8.5 4.0 10.8 10.8 * • * • * • * 25.6 12.1 32.7 32.7 Table L. Dinornis giganteus. L P Femur. M D G Te Ante. Lectotype ex celsus . . . . Te Ante, Hutton 1892b, ex celsus ■ ■ ■ ■ Makirikiri, Wang. Mus. mtd. skel. ( 38.2 13.7 0.7 15.5 composite . . . . . . • • } 38.0 13.8 6.0 16.0 20.1 Makirikiri, Wang. Mus. prob. indiv. \ I 41.1 15.7 5.8 16.1 ( Poverty Bay. Type giganteus . . . • • • ■ Poverty Bay. Owen 1844b, 241, ml.. ■ ■ ■ • 18.4 Poverty Bay. Owen 1844b, 241 fl.. 40.6 ■ ■ • Doubtless Bay. A.M 363 36.0 ■ ■ 14.4 ■ Moawhango. ?indiv. Oliver, p. 3S 38.0 15.1 6.3 18.0 ? Hawke’s Bay. H.B . 38.5 13.7 5.3 14.6 Awhitu. Cheeseman 1878. AM. 223 . . • ■ * Doubtless Bay. A.M. 2 37.5 15.0 6.6 Tibia. L P M D G 96.5 • ■ 17.8 94.7 19.1 6.9 10.8 94.0 19.3 6.8 11.3 90.7 , 7.1 10.9 19.2 90.8 . 7.1 10.8 19.2 88.7 19.4 6.0 9.7 82.4 16.8 5.5 9.8 15.6 81.6 18.7 5.7 11.1 . 79.5 15.9 5.4 9.5 14.4 79.3 , 6.2 11.1 18.6 75.9 • 5.9 10.2 16.4 50.8 48.1 45.7 52.5 53.0 47.0 46.8 45.2 50.8 44.7 47.0 Metatarsus. P M D G 11.9 11.2 12.0 11.7 10.7 11.3 11.2 11.9 11.0 o.b 5.4 5.5 5.6 14.8 14.3 14.5 14.6 15.9 16.2 16.1 4.9 12.9 14.0 4.6 4.4 5.6 5.7 5.1 13.7 14.0 13.4 14.7 12.9 15.7 16.4 Femur length — 100. P M D G 35.9 36.3 38.2 17.5 17.4 14.2 40.6 42.1 39.1 48.8 45.3 39.7 35.6 40.0 16.6 37.8 14.1 37.9 46.8 17.4 Tibia length — 100. 20.2 20.5 21.6 20.4 22.9 20.0 M D 7.2 7.8 7.8 6.8 6.7 7.0 6.8 7.8 7.8 11.5 11.5 12.0 11.9 11.0 11.9 13.6 11.9 13.9 13.4 18.4 21.2 21.2 18.9 18.7 23.4 21.6 Metatarsus length — 100. M D 24.7 24.2 22.8 22.1 22.9 25.0 22.0 26.6 23.4 11.4 11.8 10.6 10.6 30.8 31.3 27.6 27.6 10.4 27.6 9.8 9.7 10.9 12.8 10.8 29.2 30.9 26.4 32.9 Tibia — 100. G 31.2 30.8 30.4 29.8 27.5 30.9 36.7 Femur. Metatarsus. 45.0 44.0 46.0 48.5 49.5 58.0 56.8 55.0 64.0 56.4 62.0 Table M. Dinornis torosus. Mt. Arthur. A M. 122 . Timaru. B.M. 46639-43. Lyd. 240.. Glenmark. Haast 1869, no. 7 . . Takaka. Type torosus. A.M. 352 . . Takaka. D.M. Oliver, p. 41 . . Hamilton, S.I. Hutt. 1875. max. Glenmark, Haast 1869, no. 10 South Is. B.M., A. 105, Lyd. 243 .. Hamilton, S.I. Hutton 1875, mean .. South Is. strenuus Hutt. averages . . South Is. Lectotype strenuus. 1 .M. South Is. Pal. plernts Hutt. max. average min. Enfield. C.M. 1.14.2 }? pair.. 1.14.14J Glenmark. C.M. Hamilton, S.I. Hutt. 1875. min. 33.0 32.3 0-1 O oi.o 29.5 29.5 29.6 31.0 28.9 28.7 29.2 26.7 25.4 24.1 22.9 28.8 27.9 12.8 5.1 14.2 15.3 65.0 15.4 4.5 9.3 12.2 11.8 5.2 12.3 . 64.7 15.0 4.6 9.1 ■ 16.3 63.0 13.2 12.1 5.1 12.8 16.0 60.5 13.6 4.8 8.6 13.1 12.0 5.2 12.8 15.9 60.5 13.6 4.9 8.7 13.2 10.3 4.8 12.3 . CO. 5 14.0 4.5 8.1 ■ 11.2 12.2 14.6 59.7 14.5 7.6 13.7 58.4 . . • 11.9 58.3 . . 8.8 ■ 10.4 11.2 14.4 56.8 14.10 7.4 • 8.9 4.3 10.2 ■ 55.9 13.5 4.3 7.9 ■ [Femur is of 10.2 54.6 Lectotype 11.7 16 7 A. didiformis] 9.1 53.3 • 1U. ( 8.1 52.6 9.0 54.3 13.8 4.0 8.8 li.l 54.2 13.8 4.1 8.9 11.3 10.9 14.7 12.5 14.5 . k • • 10.2 10.2 14.2 52.6 13.2 • 7.0 • 33.4 9.9 4.5 12.0 11.9 32.5 9.5 5.0 11.9 • 32.8 11.9 31.5 9.1 3.8 11.3 10.3 31.4 9.1 3.8 11.1 10.3 30.4 9.0 3.9 10.8 . 31.8 9.3 4.8 12.7 12.9 32.0 • • 11.7 29.2 8.4 4.3 11.7 11.7 28.1 8.6 4.1 11.7 • 27.9 8.9 4.0 11.1 10.6 26.9 10.2 26.4 9.6 26.0 9.5 26.7 3.8 9.7 10.0 26.0 S.I 3.8 10.9 10.2 38.8 36.3 41.0 40.7 34.8 36.2 36.0 33.3 37.8 36.6 15.1 43.1 46.5 16.1 38.0 52.0 17.4 43.5 54.2 17.6 43.5 54.2 16.2 41.6 . 39.4 47.1 • • 47.5 3S.4 49.3 16.2 38.1 . [ 40.0 A. didiformis ^ 37.9 [ 35.6 16.6 43.3 50.0 36.6 50.9 Tibia length — 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia — 100. P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. 23.7 6.9 14.3 18.6 29.8 13.5 35.9 35.8 50.8 51.5 24.1 7.1 14.1 29.2 15.4 36.6 . 50.1 50.4 21.0 36.7 49.8 52.0 22.5 7.9 14.3 21.7 28.9 12.1 35.8 32.7 48.4 52.0 22.5 8.0 14.4 21.8 29.0 12.0 35.3 32.8 23.2 7.4 13.4 29.6 12.8 35.5 ■ 48.9 50.3 24.3 12.7 29.2 15.1 40.0 40.6 20.4 . 36.5 49.5 54.8 15.1 . . ■ 49.2 24.8 13.0 28.8 14.7 40.0 40.0 22.8 7.3 14.1 30.7 14.4 41.5 • 31.9 14.5 39.8 38.0 21.3 37.7 20.4 36.2 18.4 36.5 25.4 7.5 16.4 20.4 • • • 25.2 7.6 16.5 20.9 * * * 14.0 36.4 37.4 25.1 13.3 31.2 14.6 42.0 39.2 ■ 143 I Table N. Dinornis robustus Femur. Tibia. Metatarsus. Femur length = 100. Tibia length 100. Metatarsus length — 100. Tibia — 100. L P M D G L P M D G L P M D G P M D G P M D - G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. Hamilton. C.M. 1.9.5 . . 36.1 13.6 5.8 15.2 18.5 Enfield, C.M. 1.7.26 41.0 11.9 4.6 15.5 13.0 37.7 16.4 42.1 51.3 Enfield 29.2 12.7 35.5 31.8 Castle Rock. Hutton 1892b 33.0 • . 19.7 75.4 . 16.5 38.1 13.7 59.5 m 21.9 36.0 43.8 50.5 Heathcote. Types potens 36.0 . 19.3 74.9 . 15.2 38.3 . 14.5 53.5 t 20.4 37.8 48.2 51.2 Enfield. C.M. 1.9.1 . . . . . 74.5 17.0 5.7 10.5 15.6 22.8 7.6 14.2 20.9 Timaru. B.M., All, Lyd. 228 Not given by Lydekker 73.6 . . 9.7 a Not given by Lydekker . , 13.2 , Pyramid Valley. C.M. 1939/3 .. ( . * . . . 73.2 17.0 5.5 10.3 15.0 38.9 11.1 4.9 14.2 13.4 . 23.2 7.5 14.1 20.2 28.5 12.5 36.5 34.4 ) 48.4 53.2 1 35.5 13.2 5.5 14.8 17.6 73.2 17.0 5.6 10.3 15.0 39.0 11.2 4.9 14.3 13.4 37.2 15.5 41.7 49.7 23.2 7.7 14.1 20.5 28.7 12.5 36.6 34.3 j . . Pyramid Valley. C.M. xA . . • • \ 35.2 13.7 5.2 14.9 1 G.3 72.0 16.0 4.8 10.5 12.9 40.0 11.0 4.7 13.7 12.5 39.0 14.7 42.3 46.3 22.2 6.6 14.6 17.9 27.5 11.7 34.2 31.2 ) 48.8 55.5 l 35.3 13.6 5.2 15.0 16.3 71.9 16.0 4.7 10.6 12.9 40.0 11.2 4.6 13.9 12.5 38.5 14.7 42.5 46.2 22.2 6.5 14.8 17.9 28.0 11.5 34.8 31.2 j * Glenmark. C.M. mtd. not indiv. 33.6 5.8 14.6 17.6 71.5 15.7 5.3 10.5 14.3 37.2 10.2 4.6 14.1 12.8 17.3 43.5 52.4 22.0 7.5 14.7 20.0 27.5 12.4 37.9 34.4 . . Nelson. A.M. 353 35.0 13.6 5.9 14.9 18.4 71.0 17.3 5.8 10.8 16.1 42.0 11.0 5.4 13.3 15.4 38.8 16.8 45.4 52.6 25.4 8.2 15.2 22.7 26.2 12.8 31.7 36.7 49.3 59.2 South Is. Type robustus . . . . . . . . . . 36.8 10.8 4.6 14.0 14.0 . , . . . . 29.4 13.1 38.1 38.1 . South Is. Owen 1846c, robustus 34.9 13.7 14.8 18.0 . . . . . . * . , , 39.3 42.4 51.5 . . . . • . . . . . Knobby Ra. Hutt. and Coughtrey 1875b 36.6 . . 14.4 18.4 70.3 15.4 . 10.4 14.6 38.1 11.4 5.1 14.4 , . . 39.3 50.5 22.0 . 14.7 20.8 30.0 13.3 37.8 52.0 54.0 Tiger Hill. Yorkshire Mus. . . • • [ 35.3 13.7 5.5 15.3 . 69.0 17.0 5.5 10.6 . 38.5 11.2 5.0 14.2 , 38.8 15.5 43.3 . 24.6 7.9 15.3 . 29.2 13.0 37.1 • 1 50.8 55.4 \ 34.9 13.7 5.5 15.3 69.0 17.7 5.5 10.7 * 38.5 11.3 5.0 * • 39.3 15.8 43.8 ' 25.6 7.9 15.5 * 29.3 13.0 ■ • j ‘ * Table O. Dinornis maximus. South Island. Type ciltus Glenmark. Type maximus Ilaast Glenmark. Type maximus Owen Pyramid Valley. C.M. xiii C. Glenmark. C.M. mtd. ? indiv. Glenmark. C.M. 1.4.3 . . Glenmark. B.M. A. 162, Lyd. 231 Pyramid Valley. C.M. 1939 .. Glenmark. Type valid us Riverton. Hutt. (1896c. II) B.M. A6 Pyramid Valley. C.M. 1939/6 Pyramid Valley. C.M. xiii A. Riverton. Hutton 1896c I. C.M. Riverton. C.M. 1.2.15 (G.A.) Shag Valley. O.M. Pyramid Valley C.M. xiii B . . Broken River. D.M. ? indiv. . . Waikouaiti. B.M. 32039-42 (G.A.) Kapua. Tring Mus. ? indiv. . . Pyramid Valley. C.M. 1939/2 Sumner. C.M. ? indiv. Glenmark. C.M. mtd. ‘‘robustus’ Waikouaiti. Owen 1846c. “gigantei Femur. L P M D G ( 46.5 17.1 6.8 18.8 23.1 '• i 47.0 17.4 6.7 18.9 23.5 . f 43.7 17.2 6.9 19.4 22.0 i 43.7 17.1 6.8 19.3 22.0 43.5 6.6 16.5 20.8 • • i 38.7 15.1 6.8 15.3 20.5 41.9 15.4 6.4 17.7 19.2 03 40.6 14.5 6.6 17.9 ■ 41.5 16.7 6.6 17.4 22.0 i 41.7 15.8 6.3 17.3 21.2 ) 41.5 15.7 6.3 17.2 21.2 • • r 39.1 . 6.6 16.0 j " i 39.5 15.2 6.5 17.1 20.5 l . 38.0 14.2 6.5 15.9 20.3 • • ( i 39.6 15.9 5.9 17.3 18.9 • • f 38.8 • 5.9 * 13.9 38.7 15.7 6.2 17.0 18.7 40.5 16.6 7.7 17.7 • . ( 39.7 14.0 6.0 16.3 19.3 39.6 14.0 6.0 16.1 19.4 40.0 15.5 6.6 16.3 20.2 39.0 6.4 16.7 20.7 is” 40.6 15.2 15.9 19.7 Tibia. L 99.0 99.0 92.4 92.1 91.2 90.5 89.8 88.9 88.9 87.9 87.0 86.7 87.6 86.6 86.5 84.5 83.5 84.2 83.0 82.9 81.4 82.5 81.3 81.0 80.5 78.0 88.9 21.0 21.5 21.4 21.5 17.1 19.0 19.0 19.4 20.1 18.9 19.7 19.5 20.1 19.5 19.8 18.5 19.0 19.4 19.8 19.5 19.1 19.0 18.6 18.0 19.0 M D 7.2 7.6 7.5 7.7 6.5 6.7 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.1 6.8 7.0 6.9 6.6 6.7 6.0 5.5 5.7 6.0 6.3 5.7 6.8 6.1 6.1 7.1 5.8 12.5 12.6 13.4 13.5 12.2 11.5 12.8 12.0 10.8 12.6 12.6 12.4 10.4 11.1 11.3 11.2 11.3 11.4 10.3 11.2 11.6 11.8 12.1 12.1 12.2 11.7 10.2 Metatarsus. Femur length — 100. Tibia length — 100. Metatarsus length — 100. 1 ibia = 100. G L P M D G P M D C, P M D G P M D G Femur. Metatarsus. 54.6 13.3 6.5 18.4 16.1 24.4 12.0 33.7 29.4 20.9 » 36.8 14.6 39.5 49.7 21.2 7.3 12.6 21.3 . - - • l ! 47.4 52.5) 21.3 51.8 14.0 7.5 17.3 20.3 37.0 14.3 40.2 50.0 21.7 7.7 12.7 21.5 27.0 14.5 33.3 38.9 1 47.4 52.2 ) 19.9 48.2 13.6 6.1 18.2 16.5 39.4 15.8 44.5 50.4 23.2 8.2 14.5 21.5 28.2 12.7 38.0 34.2 j 47.3 52.2 20.3 48.3 13.8 6.3 18.4 16.8 39.2 15.5 44.3 50.4 23.3 8.4 14.6 22.0 28.6 12.9 38.1 34.7) ■ • 18.2 53.3 12.8 6.4 17.0 18.3 15.6 38.0 47.7 18.8 7.3 13.4 20.0 24.0 11.9 31.8 34.3 ■ • 51.5 12.0 5.8 15.8 m , . , , a . 23.4 11.3 29.4 31.2 ■ • 19.0 47.0 11.5 6.8 15.0 18.7 38.9 17.4 39.4 53.0 21.0 7.4 12.7 20.9 24.4 14.5 32.0 39.9 42.8 52.0 18.5 49.4 13.2 5.7 17.3 15.8 . . 7.1 14.2 21.1 26.8 11.5 34.7 32.0 ■ 55.0 48.8 13.2 5.8 17.1 15.8 m , . . . a 27.0 11.8 35.1 32.3 ■ ■ 18.0 48.0 11.5 6.0 16.0 16.9 36.8 15.5 42.2 45.8 21.5 7.4 13.5 20.2 23.9 12.6 33.3 36.5 46.7 53.4 49.5 12.4 5.6 16.3 . 35.7 16.2 44.0 22.6 7.4 12.1 25.0 11.3 32.9 ■ 45.7 55.7 16.8 45.0 13.4 5.8 16.2 15.6 40.0 15.8 41.8 53.0 21.5 6.9 14.3 19.1 29.8 12.9 36.0 34.6 47 2 51.2 18.3 46.7 13.5 5.9 16.6 16.0 37.9 15.2 41.5 50.8 22.6 7.9 14.5 21.1 28.9 12.6 35.5 34.3) 48.0 53.7 18.6 46.9 13.4 5.9 16.8 16.0 37.8 15.1 41.5 51.1 22.5 8.1 14.3 21.4 28.7 12.6 36.0 34.2 \ ■ 44.5 11.7 6.1 16.5 i 35.0 16.9 41.0 23.8 7.9 11.9 • 25.3 13.7 37.1 ’ 1 44.6 50.1 19.3 44.6 11.8 6.1 16.7 16.6 38.4 16.5 44.2 52.0 22.7 7.7 12.8 22.3 26.5 13.7 37.2 37.6 j. 45.6 51.5 19.3 44.1 11.8 6.1 16.7 16.6 22.9 7.8 12.9 22.3 26.9 13.9 37.9 37.7 j • • 16.2 42.5 12.4 5.9 15.3 15.7 37.5 17.2 41.8 53.5 21.9 7.1 13.2 19.2 29.2 14.0 36.0 37.1 45.0 50.3 15.7 45.2 11.8 5.3 16.0 14.8 40.2 17.8 43.7 47.9 22.8 6.6 13.5 18.8 26.2 11.8 35.4 32.7) 47.5 54.1 15.8 45.2 11.7 5.3 16.0 14.8 , 6.8 13.5 18.8 25.6 11.7 35.3 32.7 j ■ ■ 16.4 42.0 11.3 5.5 14.2 14.9 7.2 12.5 19.8 27.0 13.1 33.8 35.5 ■ 17.2 43.0 11.4 6.0 16.0 16.3 15.3 48.7 23.4 7.6 13.6 20.4 26.5 13.9 37.2 37.9) 47.0 51.9 15.5 43.0 10.9 6.1 16.0 16.5 40.6 15.9 43.8 48.5 24.3 7.0 14.3 19.1 . 14.1 37.2 38.4 ( ■ • 43.0 12.2 6.1 16.5 , 41.0 19.0 43.7 23.6 8.2 14.4 28.3 14.2 38.5 49.0 52.1 16.3 41.0 12.4 5.7 15.8 15.5 35.2 14.9 41.1 48.6 23.5 7.5 14.8 20.0 30.2 13.9 38.5 37.8) 49.0 50.5 16.2 40.6 12.4 5.7 15.8 15.5 35.3 15.2 40.6 48.9 23.4 7.5 14.9 20.0 30.5 14.6 38.9 38.1 \ * • 19.1 42.1 12.3 6.3 17.1 16.5 38.8 16.5 40.7 50.5 23.1 8.9 15.1 23.7 29 2 15.1 40.5 39.2 ■ • 16.2 42.5 11.6 5.6 15.0 15.0 16.4 42.8 53.2 23.1 7.5 15.0 21.2 27.3 13.3 35.3 35.3 • * 16.5 45.7 11.4 5.5 15.2 15.2 36.6 38.2 47.3 21.5 11.5 18.6 25.1 12.1 33.4 33.4 144 I ► Table P. (a) Strut hio camelus. ( b ) Dromiceius novae-hollandiae (a) Struthio camelus. Australian Museum. S.941 Australian Museum. S.491 South African Museum Australian Museum. S.7365 . . Australian Museum. 4118 Transvaal Museum Australian Museum. S.1253 . . L il 31 -4 i 31.4 J , 30.8 l' 31.3 30.5 \ 29.3 ) ! 29.9 { 27.3 | 27.5 27.7 f I 27.8 { 27'9 Femur. Tibia. P M D G L P M D G 11.1 10.2 55.0 11.8 11.0 10.1 55.0 11.9 10.5 10.2 52.7 11.9 10.5 10.2 52.9 11.9 9.4 51.1 . 10.2 10.0 48.0 12.3 10.7 10.0 51.0 12.6 10.1 10.0 . • 10.0 9.3 49.7 11.5 9.5 9.2 49.0 . 10.2 9.4 49.0 11.4 10.2 9.4 48.9 11.4 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 G.7 7.2 7.1 6.8 6.6 7.0 7.0 Metatarsus. I. P M D G 47.4 7.6 47.5 7.4 45.5 7.4 45.3 7.4 44.7 7.2 46.1 7.8 46.0 7.7 41.0 6.9 41.0 6.8 42.0 7.0 43.2 7.1 43.1 7.1 Femur length — 100. P M I) G 35.4 35.0 34.1 33.5 34.8 35.8 37.0 36.4 34.3 36.7 36.6 32.5 32.1 33.1 32.6 30.8 34.8 33.5 36.6 33.8 33.3 33.8 33.7 Tibia length — 100. P M D G 21.4 12.7 21.6 12.7 22.6 13.3 22.5 13.2 13.1 25.6 15.0 24.7 13.9 23.1 13.7 , 13.5 23.3 14.3 23.4 14.3 Metatarsus length — 100. P M D G 16.0 15.6 16.2 16.4 16.2 16.9 16.7 16.8 16.6 16.7 16.5 16.5 (b) Dromiceius novae-hollandiae. Australian Museum. 13244 Australian Museum. 655 Australian Museum. S.257 Australian Museum. 1515 Nat. Mus. Melb. R.1815 Nat. Mus. Melb. R.4240 Australian Museum. 6246 Nat. Mus. Melb. R.4238 L 24.3 24.2 22.8 22.7 24.1 24.2 23.4 23.2 23.8 22.8 21.8 21.8 22.5 Femur. 6.8 6.9 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.8 6.4 6.5 5.7 6.2 5.9 5.6 6.4 M D 8.1 8.1 7.7 7.8 7.5 7.4 7.8 7.6 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.0 G L 46.5 46.7 45.1 45.6 45.1 45.2 43.6 42.9 40.3 39.0 39.6 37.4 Tibia. 9.9 9.9 9.0 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.3 9.3 8.0 8.2 8.4 8.5 M D 5.3 5.2 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.6 4.8 4.9 5.0 G L 40.4 41.0 38.0 38.0 40.7 40.1 40.1 39.6 37.5 38.9 38.0 35.4 Metatarsus. 5.4 5.6 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.5 5.1 5.4 M D 5.6 5.5 5.3 5.3 5.0 5.0 5.5 5.1 4.9 4.9 5.3 G Femur length — 100. P M D G 28.0 33.4 28.5 33.4 29.4 33.8 30.0 34.4 27.4 31.2 28.1 30.6 27.3 33.4 27.8 32.5 24.0 29.8 27.2 30.7 27.0 32.6 25.6 32.0 28.4 31.1 Tibia length — 100. 21.3 21.2 2C.0 20.4 21.1 21.5 21.3 21.7 19.8 21.0 21.2 22.5 M D 11.4 11.3 10.9 11.0 11.7 11.6 11.5 11.6 11.4 12.3 12.5 13.2 Metatarsus length 100. M D 13.6 13.6 13.7 13.7 13.3 13.0 13.0 13.9 13.6 15.3 13.9 13.4 14.0 14.0 12.5 12.5 13.9 13.6 12.6 12.9 15.0 «k * * \ 4 ■tfj* * V- %