Letters, Extracts, Notices, 8$c. $33 



Trans. New Zealand Institute for 1901 (p. 149), to which, it is 

 true, lie refers, but in rather a casual fashion, although it is 

 the only authoritative account of the egg hitherto published. 

 The first sentence (p. 190) on this subject leads the reader 

 to suppose that the locality in which the egg was found is 

 uncertain: the writer appears to rely on Sir W. Buller's 

 information, which, in several instances, is erroneous and in 

 all cases is at any rate secondhand. The sentence runs : The 

 egg " was found .... in one of the Otago rivers, the 

 Clutha or Molyneux." As a matter of fact, both these 

 names are given to one and the same river, but are applied to 

 different parts of its course. My note above referred to records 

 the precise spot at which the egg was found in the river. 



Again, though this is of little general importance, the 

 "Government" had nothing whatever to do with the matter 

 of the purchase or disposal of the egg : the egg was claimed 

 by the Directors of the Dredging Co., who, however, to 

 avoid litigation, permitted the finder (one of their employes) 

 to sell it ; in fact, one of the Directors purchased it from the 

 latter for our Museum. 



The specific name of the Moa, which, as I suggested, may 

 have laid this egg, is misprinted in Dr. Meyer's article ; 

 it should read" Eiiryupteryx ponderosus " — a species described 

 hy Ilutton in Trans. N.Z. Inst. vol. xxiv. p. 137. 



The " rather insufficient illustration " given by me, to 

 which Dr. Meyer refers, is a photograph, not well produced, 

 shewing the true shape of the only perfect specimen of Moa's 

 egg. The previously published figures, being from " recon- 

 structions of the egg," such as those made by Mantell, or 

 from casts of the same, are not always correct in outline. 

 My figure seemed to be of value in this direction, and as the 

 markings on Moa's eggs had already been accurately figured 

 by more than one writer 1 did not deem it necessary to 

 repeat the details. 



"Egg 3" (p. 190).— I believe that Dr. Meyer is correct 

 in associating the egg mentioned by his informant, Mr. 

 Barnekow, with that referred to by me in 1901 on p. 150 of 

 the above-mentioned article ; but, as Mr. Barnckow writes 



SEB. VIII. VOL. 111. g I 



