594 NATURAL SCIENCE. oct.. 



AnomaJopteryx. Syovnis represents in part the genus Emeus of the 

 " Catalogue " ; while Eiiryapteryx corresponds to Pachyornis and part 

 of Emeus of the latter. The discrepancy in regard to these later 

 genera is due to the circumstance that the skull with a pointed 

 beak referred by Sir R. Owen to the elephant-footed Moa [Dinornis 

 elephantopHs) belongs, according to Captain Hutton, to the so-called 

 Dinornis cvassus ; while the former species had a broad-billed skull 

 resembling that of D. gravis. Assuming this to be correct,^ D. cvassus 

 will stand as Emeus (Syornis) ; but we have great doubt whether 

 D. gravis and D. elephantopus of Owen can both be included in 

 Euryapteryx, since, according to the restored skeleton sent home by 

 the late Sir J. von Haast, the sternum of the two birds is quite 

 different. We accordingly think that the elephant-footed Moa will 

 probably still have to stand as Pachyornis. The following table will 

 show the equivalency of Captain Hutton's scheme, and our provisional 

 amendment of the system followed in the " Catalogue " : — 



B. M. Catalogue. Hutton. 



Dinornis . . . . . . . . . . Dinornis. 



Megalapteryx . . . . . . • . o 



/ Palapteryx. 

 Anomalopteryx. 

 Anomalopteryx . . . . . . * * "i r 1 



V Mesornis. 

 Emeus (crassus) .. .. .. .. Syornis (in part). 



Euryapteryx (gravis) | Euryapteryx. 



Pachyornis (elephantopus) ) 



As it will be unnecessary to enter here into the question as to 

 whether it is preferable to use the term Anomalopteryx in its narrower or 

 wider sense, we may dismiss the systematic portion of our subject 

 with the observation that we think Captain Hutton has allowed too 

 many so-called species to remain in the typical genus Dinornis. 



Passing on to the more interesting subject of the origin and 

 extermination of the Moas, the first noteworthy point is Captain 

 Hutton's argument for the derivation of the Moas from flying birds 

 allied to the South American Tinamus, which reached New Zealand 

 during the Eocene period. As we observe from the article printed 

 above, he supports this view by stating that some of the New Zealand 

 Ratitae are the smallest representatives of that group, and thereby 

 show the nearest affinity to flying birds; while he further adds that 

 there is a difficulty in conceiving how flightless birds could have 

 entered New Zealand without being accompanied by Mammals. We 

 cannot attach very much weight to the former argument, and we 

 cannot but think that when the author admits that the Moas probably 

 passed from New Zealand to Australia during the Pliocene (? Pleis- 

 tocene) period, without the passage of any mammals in the opposite 

 direction, his arguments as to the impossibility of flightless birds, as 

 such, having reached Australia and New Zealand at an earlier period 



* We do not at present commit ourselves by saying that it is. 



