62 Recent Literature. I f uk 



found in 1887, should have been ascribed to some sluggish edentate, so 

 that the name as it now stands was originally intended for a mammal. 

 This size is the more noteworthy when we consider that in most feathered 

 giants, Gastornis is an exception, the skull is comparatively small, that of 

 the Moas being so absurdly diminutive for the big body and massive 

 legs as to seem like a caricature. A cervical vertebra of the larger species, 

 P. longisshnus, measures 5 inches across, and the tarsus of the smaller is 

 nearly 18 inches long, indicating a bird not far from six feet high- Bron- 

 tornis seems to have held much the same position among the Stereor- 

 nithes that Dinornis elepkantopus did among the Moas. being low and 

 massive, as may be judged by the tarsus, which is i6i inches long and 5^ 

 wide at either end. Pelycornis was a smaller, more lightly built species 

 than those just mentioned, but, taking the beak as a criterion, it is closely 

 related to Pkororkacos. 



What may be the affinities of these big Stereornithes is a question of 

 much interest, but it is one whose answer is still afar off, not only because 

 such important parts as the sternum and palatal region are unknown, but 

 because many intermediate links are needed to unite these extinct forms 

 with any living birds. Dr. Ameghino lays great stress on the fact that 

 there is no separation between the orbital and preorbital cavities, and 

 that the lachrymal sends a thin process downwards and backwards from 

 its inner edge to unite with the pterygoids (?). The first character is 

 one of small importance since other birds, Gallime for example, have 

 practically no bar of bone intervening between the orbit and the nasal, 

 there being but one opening between it and squamosal. The other char- 

 acter seems important, but little can be said concerning it without having 

 seen the skull itself, the more that one or two reference letters cannot be 

 made out. One can but think that through some defect of the specimen 

 the lachrymal and ethmoid have been misinterpreted, since it is ordinarily 

 the lachrymal, and not the ethmoid, which is closely applied to the 

 descending process of the nasal. Dr. Lydekker speaks of certain resem- 

 blances between the beaks of Phororhacos and those of the Cathartidse, 

 but the writer fails to see the least similarity between the two. Also, by 

 a slip of the pen, the upward curve of the lower mandible is said to be 

 found only in the Trumpeter, Psophia, among existing birds, whereas 

 Psophia has no, or but the slightest, upturning of the mandible while 

 numerous other birds have this feature. The abortion of the distal part 

 of the pubis is unique, although there is a bare possibility that, as in 

 some existing birds of prey, the posterior part of the pubis was present, 

 but free, and attached to the ischium by ligament. Dr. Lydekker makes 

 many comparisons with the Ratitse, but, as Dr. Ameghino justly says, the 

 Stereornithes appear to show that the division of the class of birds into 

 Ratitie and Carinatse is not fundamental, a point wherein most American 

 ornithologists will agree with him. Apparently the main reasons for 

 comparing such forms as Phororhacos and Brontornis with the Struthi- 

 ones is because they are large and extinct when, as a matter of fact, mere 



