378 NATURAL SCIENCE. May, 



that of Mr. Lydekker's catalogue, — a volume which had already 

 reached the Colony before the reading of his paper, in which the 

 classification is based on the type material in the British Museum, 

 instead of adding to the already almost hopelessly involved synonymy 

 of the Dinornithida.% as his paper before the New Zealand Institute 

 unfortunately does. 



As to the age of the oldest fossil Moa bones found in New 

 Zealand, Mr. Hutton, I find, dissents from my opinion as to the 

 geological horizon in which the remains were found, which he is, of 

 course, entitled to do. In stating, however, that " this conclusion was 

 not arrived at by a re-examination of the sections at Mount Horrible 

 and the Pareora, Mr. Forbes merely went to a quarry near Timaru, and, 

 with 'little doubt,' identified a ' rough red shingle,' which he did not 

 even see in situ, with the gravels of the alluvial fans of the Canterbury 

 Plains," Mr. Hutton has affirmed what is not only quite incorrect, 

 but what could not possibly be within his knowledge. He could not 

 know how often I examined the geological structure of the region, or 

 with what care, or what I have seen or not seen in situ. The shingle 

 below the clay (or so-called loess) underlying the lava-bed, by which 

 the age of the section is determined, 1 practically did see in situ on my 

 first visit, and having subsequently re-examined the district, I have 

 assured myself of the correctness of my previous observations and 

 opinion. I shall, however, most willingly admit that I am mistaken 

 as to the age of the strata in which these Dinovnis remains have been 

 found as being other than " newer Pliocene or even Pleistocene," so 

 soon as the officers of the New Zealand Geological Survey — who are 

 really the only competent referees in the case — shall have assigned to 

 these gravels a different age. Notwithstanding Mr. Hutton's doubt as 

 to the correct identification of the avian remains in the same bed in 

 association with those of the Moa, I can, without hesitation, re-affirm 

 that the bone 1 determined as Aptevyx anstmlis, and figured in the 

 Tyansactions of the New Zealand Institute (vol. xxiii., pi. xxxvi., 

 p. 368), really belonged to that bird. The bone, of which the drawing 

 (for which 1 am responsible) is unfortunately not so good as a better 

 draughtsman might have made, was, as I there pointed out, 

 somewhat distorted by heat, but otherwise its identity was un- 

 mistakable. 1 am glad to find that Mr. Hutton admits " if it had 

 been correct that bones of a living species of Kiwi occurred with 

 them [the Moa-bones] , it would have been strong evidence in favour 

 of the bed being younger than Miocene." His observation that the 

 figure in the plate illustrating my paper more resembles the femur 

 of Aptovnis surprises me, for the bones in the two birds are very dis- 

 similar in form and strikingly different in size. The bone figured by 

 me is represented of the natural size, and even in so poor a figure, 

 the delineation of its internal structure recalls at once the section 

 of an Apteryx femur. 



Mr. Hutton, in the same paper, discusses the question, How long 



