104 Dr. A. B. Meyer on 



between 200 and 300 fragments. I may add that in the 

 markings, size, and so forth, of the eggs (making allowance 

 for the alteration of the former toward the ends of the eggs) 

 I made out about twenty-four varieties, of which I have 

 specimens." In the Proc. Wellington Philos. Soc. (Tr. Pr. 

 N.Z. Inst. iv. p. 364, 1872) occurs the following paragraph 

 as to these " models " : — " Mr. Mantell explained that be 

 had restored, more or less perfectly, about twenty eggs, and 

 that he had, as a rule, found them imperfect at one end, as if a 

 hole had been artificially formed for the purpose of extracting 

 the contents, and perhaps to allow of the shell being used 

 as a water vessel . . /' From part of these fragments Owen 

 restored the egg referred to Emeus crassus (Owen) from the 

 South Island and figured by him, which is now in the 

 British Museum (see sub No. 10). 



10—12. There are three specimens restored in plaster in 

 the British Museum and several fragments (see Oates, Cat. 

 Eggs, i. p. 8, 1901) ; according to the Catalogue the frag- 

 ments were collected by Mr. Mantell, the three restored eggs 

 only doubtfully so. Owen had already figured one of these 

 (not two as Mr. Oates says), supposed to be that of Dinornis 

 [Emeus'] crassus Owen : the other egg figured by Owen, and 

 supposed to belong to D. ingens Owen, is not in the British 

 Museum, but in the Rowley Collection, as mentioned above, 

 sub No. 1 . The last-named is the original of Owen's pi. cxvii. 

 in 'Mem. Extinct Wingless Birds New Zealand/ p. 318 (1879), 

 whereas the British-Museum egg is figured pi. cxv. (p. 317), 

 as well as in Rowley's ' Orn. Misc.' iii. p. 244', pi. cxv. 

 (1878). It is incomplete and put together from small pieces, 

 measuring, according to the drawiug, 190 by 151 mm., 

 according to Oates (/. c. p. 7) 7*25 by 6 in. [184 by 

 152 mm.]. The other two restored specimens in the 

 British Museum measure, according to Oates, 7*75 by 5-25 

 and 81 by 5'9 in. [197 by 133 and 206 by 150 mm.]. I do 

 not understand why the Catalogue cpaestions the fact that 

 these were from the Mantellian Collection, Owen stating 

 this, so far as I can see (/. c. p. 317), and Mr. Mantell him- 

 self saying so (see above under No. 9). I may mention 



