32 BULLETIN OF THE LIVERPOOL MUSEUMS. 
wings or tail. From Fregilupus it also differs in the form of the wings, in the 
absence of a crest, and somewhat in the shape of the bill. 
In their well-known paper in the Transactions of the Royal Society,* 
Dr. Giinther and [Sir] Edward Newton have described, under the name of 
‘Necropsar rodericanus, the sub-fossil remains of a bird, discovered in Rodri- 
guez in 1874, “on the south-west side of the island,” by Mr. Slater, the 
Naturalist to the Transit of Venus Expedition. Therein they quote Mr. 
Slater’s description of Necropsar as “altogether a smaller bird than Fregilupus 
varius, to which it is most closely allied.” “If it were a mammal,” continues 
Mr. Slater, “I should not make a separate genus of it, but as it is a bird, I 
think I cannot do less.” The authors of the paper proceed to remark that 
they ‘‘quite agree with the discoverer of the bird in questioning the pro- 
priety of generically separating two species on what appear,” to them, “very 
slight modifications of the osteological frame,’ and they ‘‘retain the name 
Necropsar merely from the wish of conforming with the present ornithological 
practice.” Necropsar was consequently, in the opinion of Dr. Giinther and 
Sir Edward Newton, really congeneric with Fregilupus. The authors agree 
also in assigning, with more or less probability, the fossil remains of 
Necropsar to the little white bird said to inhabit the Ile au Mat, by the 
unknown author of the Relation. In the probable correctness of their deter- 
mination they are supported by the opinion of M. E. Oustalet.+ It should 
be noted, however, that the J/e au Mat bird was not, in 1730 at all events, 
known on the mainland, whence the sub-fossil bones were brought by Mr. 
Slater. 
The little osteological material left in the skin having been, with admir- 
able care and skill, exposed to view,} where safely possible, by my taxidermist, 
I have been able to examine and compare with the corresponding parts of 
Fregilupus and Necropsar, the tibia, the proximal end of the metatarsus, of 
the cranium a small part only (as the occipital region had, unfortunately, 
been cut away), and the tongue, together with a portion of the hyoid 
apparatus. 
Of these bones the tibia and the metatarsus (so far as the latter could be ex- 
posed to view) are coracomorphous, and closely similar, except in size, to the 
corresponding bones in Fregilupus and Necropsar. While, however, the tibia of 
Fregilupus measures 65 mm. in length, and of Necropsur from 52 to 59, the 
length, in the Derby specimen, is 46 (exactly that of the same bone in the 
Common Starling) ; but the diameter of the middle of the shaft in Fregilupus 
(taken from Dr. Murie’s figure in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society, 
1874, p. 474) in being 2 mm., indicates a proportionately more slender tibia 
than that in the Derby specimen, which is, though shorter, also 2 mm, in 
width. The width of the tibia in Vecropsur is a little over 2 mm., as taken 
from the figure in the Royal Society’s Transactions. In its cnemial crest, 
in the general contours of the “knee”-joint, and in the arched crest for 
the reception of the fibula, the tibia of the Derby specimen shows many 
resemblances to the corresponding parts of the same bone in the two species 
with which I have been comparing it. 
The metatarsus measures in our specimen 315 mm., as against 45 mm. 
in Fregilupus, and 41 to 36 mm. in Necropsar ; and its hypo-tarsus presents 
the same five canals, for the passage of the flexor tendons, as in these genera. 
The portion of the skull which it was alone safe to uncover, showed only 
the somewhat damaged basis cranii, and the truncated brain case. The 

* Phil. Trans., Vol. 168, p. 427, pl. xlii. figs. A-G (1879). 
+ Ann. Sc. Nat., Zoologie, t. xiii. p. 10 (1896). 
+ This operation showed that the flesh of the wings and legs had not been removed 
in preparing the skin, but had been mummified by some unknown process. 
