BY C. W. DE VIS. 451 



examined for the lines of coalescence ; uncertain indications of 

 them appeared in a few, but in none were they continuous and 

 well marked. In the bone from the foot of an example of A. 

 mantelli which seemed to be nearly half grown, these lines are still 

 apparent in the form of fine continuous grooves. At maturity 

 they disappear altogether, as I learn from Professor Parker, who 

 kindly examined for me his adult specimens and found complete 

 anchylosis to have taken place in all. In the fossil metatarsal 

 these lines are on the posterior side quite conspicuous, but, as in 

 the kiwi, they are less distinct on the anterior, and, again as in 

 the kiwi, they are interrupted in the middle of that side by 

 complete confluence of the superficies. The fossil obviously came 

 from a bird of nearly the same age as the Apteryx compared with it. 



In the figure of the metatarsal of the Apteryx (PI. xxiii., fig. 9a) 

 there is shown on the dorsal side adjoining the trochleae of the 

 inner and mesial pedicels a large rough depression for the inser- 

 tion of their extensor tendons. Among other living birds areas 

 of insertion as great and definite as these have hitherto eluded the 

 search of the observer. On the exterior pedicel of the fossil the 

 same feature is seen to occur (PI. xxiii., fig. 8a). 



Finally, as in the example of A. mantelli before us, the shaft is 

 not pierced by the tibial artery. But this character is of com- 

 paratively little value since the perforation is, as we have seen, 

 absent in a bird which either belongs or is nearly related to 

 Dromaius, and is present in Ey ton's figure of the me tat arse of 

 Apteryx australis. 



The features which have been noticed so far are those in which 

 the fossil appears to be in close agreement with Apteryx. United 

 they seem to justify the conclusion that in spite of all our precon- 

 ceptions this Australian relic represents a bird having a decided 

 family relationship with the Apterygidce of New Zealand. 



But even so it was not an Apteryx — this it asserts emphatically. 



In the first place it had no traceable hind toe. The portion of 



the shaft preserved extends proximad far beyond the level of this 



toe in Apteryx and bears on its surface no sign of, not the slightest 



depression on its rotundity indicating, the existence of a hallucal 



30 



