GASTORXITHID^. 357 



Family GASTORNITHID.E. 



The skull differs from that of existing Eatitfe by the more back- 

 ward extension of the occipital region, which is less bent down- 

 wards at an angle to the frontal plane ; its frontal region is con- 

 stricted and concave ; and the postorbital processes are large and 

 directed outwardly, with a concave anterior border. In the type 

 genus the cranial sutures are persistent; and the skull is large in 

 proportion to the limb-bones. The tarso-raetatarsns ' is long and 

 .slender, with the fourth trochlea slightly longer than the second, 

 and a large perforation in the groove between the third and fourth 

 trochlea?. The tibio-tarsus has its distal extremity inflected, and 

 a bridge over the extensor groove, placed nearer to "the middle line 

 than in the Dinornithidn' ■ the entocondyle is narrow and promi- 

 nent, and the intercondylar gorge very wide and deep ^ The great 

 trochanter of the femur does not rise above the level of the head. 

 The pehis approximates to that of the Casiiariulcr, but has an 

 upward expansion of the distal portion of the ischium. The cora- 

 coid (as exemplified by Bemiorms) also resembles that of the last- 

 named family. 



Genus GASTORNIS, He'bert \ 

 The type genus. 



Gastornis parisiensis, Hebert\ 



The type species. Length of tibio-tarsus exceeding 0,480 (18-9 

 inches). 



Hah. Europe (I'rauce). 



R. 67. Cast of the imperfect left femur. The original, which is 

 one of the types, was obtained in 1855 from the Lower 

 Eocene of Meudon ; and is preserved in the Paris Museum. 

 It is figured by Milne-Edwards in his ' Oiseaux Fossiles 

 de la France,' pi. xxix. figs. 1-3. 



Presented h;/ ,■<;>■ It Owen, K.C.B. 



' See Lemoine ' Kecbercbes sur les Oiseaux Fossiles de rEurirons de Reims ' 

 pt. i. pi. ill. (Paris, 1878). 



= From the contour oCthe distal e.xt.v.nity of the tibiu-larsus, Ga^lonii. bas 

 been considered to be allied to the Anseres. Tbere is, however, an almost 

 equally close resemblance to the corresponding bone oi Dromorni. and a more ' 

 distant one to that of Pach„orms; the absence of the extensor bridge in 

 Dromornis, as shown by the instance of the Apfen/gid.e and Di.onnhidc 

 being of no great morphological importance. The distal extremitv of the bone 

 IS less inclined inwards, and the extensor bridge much less depiTssed than in 

 the Anseres, while the Urso-nietatarsus is quite dissimilar. 



= Compfes Rcndus, vol. xl. pp. 570, 1214 (185:i). •< Loc cit 



