i8g 5 . NOTES AND COMMENTS. 157 



however, of finally clearing the matter, will be to take some 

 characteristic portion of the skeleton as the standard of reference, 

 even at the risk of displacing some older names that have been 

 applied to other parts. An important advance in this direction is 

 made in a valuable paper by Professor Jeffery Parker " On the 

 Cranial Osteology, Classification, and Phylogeny of the Dinornithidae" 

 (Trans. Zool. Soc. London, vol. xiii., part 2 ; 1895). In this, detailed 

 descriptions are given of the various types of dinornithine skulls, 

 and an attempt is made to determine the number of genera and 

 species into which the family may be divided, taking this portion of 

 the skeleton as the criterion. The results obtained agree in the main 

 with those of Mr. Lydekker, the only important difference being that 

 some of the species referred by him to Anomalopteryx are placed under 

 the genus Mesopteryx of Hutton. It would be a great advantage if 

 this nomenclature could be adopted, for this is one of the instances 

 in which a pedantic application of the law of strict priority would 

 only make confusion worse confounded. 



In the last part of his paper the author enters into a very 

 interesting discussion on the relations of the genera to one another, 

 and of the Dinornithidae as a whole to the other Ratite birds, in so 

 far as those relations can be determined from the structure of the 

 skull. He considers Mesopteryx, with its lightly-built skull and slender 

 beak, the least specialised form ; while he suggests that Dinornis and 

 Emeus are the most highly modified, the former having probably 

 arisen from the primitive stock independently of the other genera, 

 while the latter is derived from the ancestor of Mesopteryx. As 

 to the relations of the family to other Ratites, he considers that its 

 nearest ally is Apteryx, and that they are both connected with the 

 primitive stock which also gave rise to the Australian Ratites, the 

 emu and the cassowary. The ostrich and rhea are regarded as 

 having arisen independently from the " Proto-carinatae." This view 

 harmonises with what might be expected from the geographical 

 distribution of the Ratitae, and is further supported by many 

 structural differences other than those found in the skull. 



The Kea. 



In our number for November, 1895, v °l- vn -i P- 3°4> we quoted 

 from the Zoologist some remarks by Mr. Taylor White anent the Kea 

 of New Zealand. The Otago Daily Times for December 14 has 

 criticised both the facts and opinions of Mr. White somewhat 

 severely, and since its editorial note on the subject appears to be 

 written by one speaking with authority and not as the scribes of the 

 daily Press, we think it advisable to show our readers what the New 

 Zealanders themselves think of Mr. White's views. " His facts," 

 says the Daily Times, " appear to be the more interesting features. 

 We have Mark Twain's authority for the statement that there is 



