532 Mr. R. Lydekker on some 



when we have to do with bones belonging to a comparatively 

 modern epoch. In such cases a comparison with the 

 corresponding bones of every living species belonging to 

 the groups to which the fossil is considered to be allied 

 is essential before any bone can be regarded as indicating a 

 new species, much less a new genus. 



A case in point occurs with the fragment of the upper end 

 of a humerus figured in pi. xxiv. fig. 1 of the last paper on the 

 list, which is referred to a new genus of Accipitriues, under 

 the name of Necrastur. Now I am far from asserting that 

 Mr. De Vis may not be perfectly justified in referring this bone 

 to the Accipitres, although its Accipitrine affinities are not 

 apparent from the figure ; but even if he be correct in this, 

 I am scarcely prepared to admit that he has conclusively 

 made out its right to generic distinctness. Moreover, even if 

 it be eventually pi'oved that he is right in both these respects, 

 I quite fail to see of what possible advantage it can be to 

 cumber science with a generic name for a bird known merely 

 by such a fragment of bone, and of which the precise affinities 

 cannot possibly be conjectured. I may add that in his 

 description of this bone on p. 437 Mr. De Vis confuses the 

 ulnar with the radial side, and thereby renders his remarks 

 somewhat difficult to follow. 



Again, the fragment of the distal end of a tarso-metatarsus 

 figured in pi. xxiii. fig. 7 of the same memoir is so battered 

 and imperfect that I cannot help having some doubt whether 

 the bird to which it belonged was really specifically distinct 

 from the author's previously described Dromceus patricius. 

 In describing this specimen the author lays stress on the 

 absence of the perforation between the third and fourth 

 metatarsals (p. 447), which it is suggested may prove of 

 generic importance ; but this reads rather strange when 

 contrasted with the observations on page 451, where it is 

 stated that the absence or presence of such a canal in 

 Apteryx is not even of specific value. 



The occurrence in Australia of a representative of the 

 Apterygid(E, if well authenticated, would be a matter of 

 extreme interest, but I venture to think that ornithologists 



