418 Messrs. Salvin and Sclater's Index to the 



Skull, Femur, Tibia, and Metatarsus of Aptornis defossor, 

 Owen, from near Oamaru, Middle Island, New Zealand ; 

 with additional Observations on Aptornis otidiformis, on 

 Notornis mantelli, and Dinornis curtus. Trans. Zool. Soc. 

 vii. pp. 353-380, plates xl.-xliv. (Read Mar. 10, 1870, 

 published January 1871.) 



2. On Dinornis (Part xvi.) : containing notices of the Internal 

 Organs of some Species, with a description of the Brain and 

 some Nerves and Muscles of the Head of the Apteryx australis. 

 Trans. Zool. Soc. vii. pp. 381-396, plates xlv.-xlvii. (Read 

 May 26, 1870; published Jan. 1871) 



These papers are further contributions to Prof. Owen's well- 

 known series on Dinornis. In the first cited the author expresses 

 his long-entertained hopes of receiving the materials for a mono- 

 graph of Notornis before that fast-disappearing form finally 

 departs from amongst living birds. lu this hope we cordially 

 concur. ■ It is in this Raliine form, rather than in Dinornis, that 

 Aptornis vnW perhaps find its nearest ally. 



In the second paper the author gives notes upon the brain, 

 cerebral nerves, and cranial capacity of Apteryx, on the brain 

 of Dinornis, on the trachese of Apteryx, Struthio, and Casuarius, 

 on the trachea and larynx of Dinornis crassus, on the trachese 

 oi Dinornis rheides"^. , Dinornis elephantopus"^. , D.ingens?,D.robus-, 

 tus ?, and Aptornis defossor, and on the muscles of the mandible 

 and hyoid of Apteryx. 



3. On the Dodo (Part ii.) . Notes on the articulated Skeleton 

 of the Dodo (Didus ineptus, Linn.) in the British Museum. 

 Trans. Zool. Soc. vii. pp. 513-525, plates Ixiv.-lxvi. (Read 

 April 18, 1871; published Nov. 1871.) 



In this paper Prof. Owen reviews Messrs. A. & E. Newton's 

 memoir " On the Osteology of the Sohtaire" (Phil. Trans. 1869, 

 p. 327 et seqq.), and institutes many comparisons between the 

 structural peculiarities of the Dodo and Pezophaps solitaria. 

 We remark that he seems to admit of the specific distinction of P. 

 minor, of Strickland, from the last-mentioned bird, the view taken 

 by the ?i'lessrs. Newton being that the remarkable difi"erence in 

 size between the remains of the largest and smallest specimens 

 was simply sexual and not specific. 



