452 RESIDUE OF EXTINCT BIRDS OF QUEENSLAND AS YET DETECTED, 



metatarsal. In the immature A. mantelli the impression of the 

 first metatarsal on the shaft is distinct, but considering that 

 possibly it might be absent occasionally in this or other species 

 the writer sought instruction from Professor Parker on this point 

 also, and was very kindly informed by him that the impression is 

 sometimes " nearly obsolete " in the living birds. As it appears 

 from this that it is never entirely absent, we are at liberty to 

 assume that the extinct bird was tridactyle, or, if we prefer it, had 

 a hind toe in a still more rudimentary condition than Apteryx. 



The elongation of the lateral pedicels, and especially that of the 

 inner one, is carried to a considerably greater extent than in 

 Apteryx, while their angles of divergence from the mesial pedicel 

 are less. 



More notable still as an index to the aptitudes of the bird, and 

 tending moreover to explain the probable absence of the hind toe, 

 is the size of the mesial pedicel, which is enlarged out of all 

 proportion to the laterals. It is twice as broad as the inner, and 

 two and a half times the breadth of the outer. Its trochlea 

 evidently supported a toe which took a principal part in sustaining 

 the weight of the body and was the main instrument of progres- 

 sion. It is therefore a fair inference that the cursorial power of 

 the bird was much superior to that of the kiwis, and indeed it is 

 scarcely too much to infer that in this important part of its 

 organization the extinct bird was nearly as much an emu as an 

 Apteryx. 



Unconformably to the emu and kiwi alike is the inner trochlea 

 with its pedicel, which in the fossil bird is or appears to be the 

 longer of the two laterals — it is at least that trochlea which is on 

 the thinner side of the shaft, the inner in Apteryx, which has the 

 broader and more rhomboidal articulating surface, and which 

 has the insertion of an extensor tendon stamped upon its pedicel. 

 The shaft, as before stated, is not perforated by the tibial artery, 

 and herein agrees with the metatarsal of A. mantelli collated with 

 it ; but in the latter the artery in its passage between the outer 

 and mesial pedicels is protected by a bony canal, almost amounting 

 to a tunnel, developed in the angle formed by the pedicels ; of this 

 there is no trace in the fossil. 



