Parker, — Notes on a Skeleton of Notornis. 81 



however much one may regret the restriction of a well- 

 established and widely-known name. 



From the point of view of zoo-geography, it is decidedly 

 interesting to find Notornis, like Orthonyx, Petrceca, Turnayra, 

 Glaucopis, Oijdromus, and Aptenjx, represented in the two 

 Islands by distinct species. 



On comparing the bones of the present specimen with the 

 published figures of Owen and of Meyer, the only matters I 

 consider to be worth mentioning are one or two points of 

 difference in the skull. 



In both the Dresden and Dunedin specimens the beak pre- 

 sents a somewhat stronger downward curvature than in Owen's 

 specimen, and the nasal aperture is slightly smaller. A more 

 obvious, although still comparatively unimportant, difference is 

 seen in the relations of the well-marked ridges which bound the 

 temporal fossa above and behind. The distance between these 

 ridges, or in other words the width of the flattened roof of the 

 skull in the parietal region, is very markedly less in the Dresden 

 and Dunedin specimens than in the North Island fossil figured 

 by Owen, the proportion being about 2:3. In the latter, also, 

 the ridge in question forms a very even curve, whereas in both 

 the Te Anau skulls there is a distinct angulation at the junction 

 of the supra-occipital and the parietal. This may be expressed 

 differently, by saying that the temporal muscles are larger in 

 N. hochstetteri than in N. mantelli: whether the difference is one 

 of age or of sex it is of course impossible to say, but all three 

 skulls appear to be fully adult. The distance between the tem- 

 poral ridges, at the narrowest point, is 21-75 mm. in Owen's 

 figure, 13-5 both in Meyer's figure and in the present specimen. 



Whether an ornithologist would consider a difference of this 

 nature of any importance I cannot say : as far as it goes, it 

 tends to support Meyer's view of the distinctness of the Northern 

 from the Southern Notornis. 



In conclusion, I give a series of comparative measurements 

 of the Dresden and Dunedin specimens. I may mention that 

 certain discrepancies between the measurements of the Dresden 

 skeleton, as given by Meyer and by myself in the paper referred 

 to above, are due to the fact that Dr. Meyer has — no doubt, 

 correctly — given in every case the greatest length of the bone, 

 whereas I have given the length of a median longitudinal axis. 

 This makes a great difference, especially in such bones as the 

 sternum. In the following table the measurements are taken 

 so as to compare exactly with Meyer's : — 



Dunedin Dresden 

 Skull. — Specimen. Specimen. 



Length from posterior surface of occipital 



condyle to end of beak 98 mm. 



Greatest breadth 45 . . 45 mm. 



