Letters, Announcemetits , ^^c. 99 



" Pullus galliuaceus monstrosus, magnitudiue pulli recens 

 exclusi. Caput habebat anaticum, superius tamen magis in 

 acumen desinens; rostrum anaticum latum, cujus superior 

 extremitas deorsum inflexa : ocellos parvos, collum breve : 

 alas parvulas juxta priora crura positas : quatuor crura galli- 

 nacea : carebat pectore, quippe eo loco quo pectus esse de- 

 bebat duo crura liabens, quodlibet superius tres quadrantes 

 digiti longum, inferius quadrantem : & in singulis quatuor 

 digitos gallinaceos. Posteriora duo crura ejusdem figurse & 

 longitudinis cum anterioribus mire posita erant^ sinistrum 

 quidem more naturally dextrum vero in exortu suo sinistro 

 erat adnatuni & quasi sursum vergebat, eo modo quasi duo 

 sinistra crura fuissent, & unum dextrum loco sinistri in 

 exortu fuisset adglutniatum : atque ideo uropygio carebat, 

 quia nullum intervallura inter crura hsec posteriora, & caudse 

 loco ipsi sinistro cruri exterius longiusculi pili canescentes 

 erant adnati. Pedes habebat gallinaceos & digitos eodem 

 modo dispositos : sed quilibet pes totus inverso ordine positus 

 erat, ita ut inferior pars esset superior & superior inferior, 

 unguiculique etiam sursum non deorsum vergebant. Totum 

 caput, collum, venter, alse, dorsum & superiora crura non 

 ve&tiebantur pennis, sed pilis nigris semidigitum longis qui 

 sub ventre & gutture paululum canescebant. In summa 

 plane monstrosus pullus. Crura inferiora & pedes fusci 

 coloris, uti & rostrum, vitalia viscera habebat gallinanacea, 

 sed inordinate disposita. Cor magnum. Vivebat cum ex- 

 cluderetur.^^ 



From these remarks it is evident that Marcgrav regarded 

 the bird described by him as a monstrosity, and had no suspi- 

 cion that any post-natal metamorphosis of the anterior limbs 

 would be likely to take place. Nevertheless it is quite pos- 

 sible that what he supposed to be a young chicken may have 

 been a young Hoatzin, and in the figure which he gives the 

 bill of the bird (if correctly drawn) is quite unlike that of a 

 chicken. It is true that he write " alas parvulas juxta priora 

 crura positas ;" but there is no trace of any rudimentary wings 

 in the figure, and it is at least unlikely that there would have 

 been three pairs of limbs. What Marcgrav mistook for 



