V °!'s5, m ] Recent Literature. 6'^ 



size is no reason for supposing a bird related to an Ostrich, while the 

 pelvis of PhororhacoSs with its aborted pubis, shows that this genus at least 

 is very many removes from any struthious bird. Neither is Gastornis, 

 with its primitive type of skull, any relation of the Stereornithes. 



The well-developed supra-orbital bone of Phororhacos is particularly a 

 mark of South American forms, but as it occurs in such different birds 

 as Psophia and some of the Tinamous, it gives no clue to probable rela- 

 tionship, and until the sternum and palate come to light the Stereornithes 

 must remain largely unclassified, although we have some hints as to their 

 affinities and more as to their habits. The skull tells us that the Phoro- 

 racidie at least captured living creatures, for the upturned lower mandible 

 occurs among the Herons, and is extremely well-marked in the King- 

 fishers. Correlated with the beak is the squareness of the hind cranium 

 and the prominence of all the ridges, these things, which have to do with 

 seizing and holding, being found in very dissimilar forms of similar 

 predaceous habits. Birds of prey, which grasp with their talons, have the 

 beak modified for tearing and possess a weak decurved lower jaw. The 

 coracoid has little resemblance to the unique coracoid of Psophia, but the 

 bones of the shoulder girdle, particularly the scapula, are verv like those 

 of a Heron, while the metacarpus much resembles that of Palamedea, 

 minus the spurs. The pelvis, in its straightness and squareness, has 

 certain agreements with that of Palamedea and the Herons, and still more 

 with that of Psophia, though differing from them most emphatically in 

 the abortion of the pubis. The main facts, however, shown by pelvis and 

 legs, indicate that these birds were runners, though the hypotarsus indi- 

 cates verv plainly that there is no relationship with birds of high degree. 

 That Phororhacos and its allies should have resemblances to more than 

 one group of birds is not surprising, not only from their geographical 

 distribution and geological horizon, but because although specialized in 

 details they were generalized in many points of structure. The Phororha- 

 cidse at least seem distantly related to Psophia and not much more dis- 

 tantly to the Herons, and we may recall that we have one aberrant relative 

 of the Herons alive to-day in the shape of the curious African Bal&niceps. 

 That the Stereornithes have any near living relatives is not evident and 

 it is much easier to say where their affinities do not lie than where they 

 do, but that such strange forms should have been found in South America 

 seems quite natural, and others just as strange will undoubtedly come to 

 light. We have in such birds as Chauna, Steatornis, Psophia and Cari- 

 ama the waifs and strays of a lost avifauna left by the sea of time stranded 

 on the shores of the present, and the more we delve in the sands of the 

 past, the more of these quaint forms will we bring to light. And we 

 cannot better close than by wishing it may be given to Senor Ameghino 

 to find these missing pieces and fit them in their proper places. — F. A. L. 



