578 Letters, Extracts, Notices, S^c. 



not yet been developed, it is not possible to give their 

 characters or exact measurements. They, however, cer- 

 tainly exceed 11 inches, and possibly reach 12 inches in 

 length. There are besides three pelves, one sternum, a whole 

 vertebral series, including the tail, several ribs, two partially 

 complete sets of wing-bones, and a dozen or more legs com- 

 plete, so that the collection probably comprises nearly all the 

 bones of the skeleton. The femur is of the same massive 

 build as that of Dromornis australis, and even exceeds it in 

 size. Moreover, so far as can be judged from description 

 and plates, it differs from it in contour and section, which is 

 greatly compressed antero-posteriorly, and in some other 

 particulars. The differences between the two tibiae are also 

 considerable, especially in respect of the existence in the 

 new fossil of a bony ridge across the precondylar groove. 

 The proximal end of the femur differs also from the fragment 

 assigned by Mr. De Vis to Dlnornis queenslandiee , but not 

 accepted as such by Captain Hutton. Apart from the vast 

 differences of proportion, the leg-bones of the new fossil have 

 many points of resemblance to those of Dromaus in the dis- 

 position of salient anatomical features, a similarity which 

 has been noted by Sir R. Owen in the case of Dromornis. 

 The foot (relatively small, when compared with that o^Dinornis 

 elephantopus) is tridactyle, the outer toe appearing to possess 

 only four phalangeal segments. 



" Of the wing we fortunately possess two examples, one 

 wanting only the phalangeal portion, the other more imperfect. 

 Comparing it with this appendage of the same Emu, where the 

 humeral and radio-ulnar segments are respectively 10 cm. 

 and 7'o cm. in length, I find that the corresponding segments 

 of the fossil bird are 89 cm. and 10 cm. and considerably 

 thicker. 



^^The remaining bird-bones are in the collection which has 

 yet to reach Adelaide, and I can, therefore, give no particulars 

 of them from personal observation. There can, however, 

 I think, be no doubt, even from the above limited observa- 

 tions, that these bird-remains indicate the former existence 

 of a large extinct struthious bird distinct from both Dromornis 

 and the Dinornis queenslandia of De Vis.'^ 



