White. — Was there a Sivimming Moa ? 343 



written in the ' Odontornithes ' ; its true affinities, as re- 

 corded in that volume, are now confirmed beyond dispute. 

 In the same region where the type specimen was discovered 

 a remarkably perfect Hcsperornis, with feathers in place, has 

 been found, and these feathers are the typical plumage of the 

 ostrich."''' 



Dr. E. W. Shufeldt has a letter in Nat7ire of the 13th 

 May, 1897, in which he attacks Professor Marsh's theory of 

 the' struthious affinities of Hesperornis ; but in saying "that 

 Hesperornis possessed some kind of a plumaceous plumage, 

 however, I long believed, and see no reason to change that 

 opinion now," Dr. Shufeldt has supported my contention 

 that the poua and Gnevviornis carried a covering of feathers 

 resembling those of the moa, and so had no powers of flight. 

 Certain of the moas had a considerable portion of their 

 feathers, especially those on the breast, well covered with 

 a fine down, and this down would be greatly impervious to 

 water and buoyant, owing to the air entangled therewith, and 

 would not by any means be such an unsuitable protection 

 to a.n aquatic bird. 



To quote again from the same writer, " Professor Marsh, 

 is not the only writer that has been led astray in some parts 

 of avian classification by employing what have been called 

 ' struthious characters ' in avian osteology, and now he thinks 

 his views are supported by the recent discovery of Williston, 

 referred to above. Having carefully examined the published 

 plate of the latter author, ] must say that I am quite sceptical 

 as to what he believes to be long tarsal feathers (leg-feather- 

 ing) in Hesperornis. Surely in the figure the resemblance 

 to feathers is very remote ; and, quite as surely, long droop- 

 ing plumaceous feathers hanging down to the feet m a big 

 powerful diver would in no way whatever assist it in either 

 swimming or diving. . . . Plumaceous plumage was very 

 likely far more prevalent among the earliest birds in time than 

 it is now among modern types, and this applies absolutely to 

 not a few characters in the skeleton. The latter, along what- 

 ever line we may trace them, are evidences of an approach 

 reptilewards, and by no means point to struthionine affinity. 

 Certain peculiarities of the pelvis and at the base of the 

 cranium, when associated with certain others, have, as I say, 

 been unfortunately termed 'struthious characters,' and, with 

 this mistaken idea operative, our more superficial avian anato- 

 mists can see but little beyond ' ostrich ' in either Finamon 

 or Apteryx. . . . There is no more ostrich in Hesperornis 

 than there is diver in Struthio." 



* Williston, " Kansas University Quarterly," vol. v., 53. 



