uf a large Pelican in the English Fens. 369 



rough impression situated beneath it; the extent of the de- 

 pressed surface where the anterior deltoid is lodged ; the position 

 of the canal for nourishing the bone ; the number and the size 

 of the pneumatic orifices, and so forth. The agreement of the 

 proportions between the shaft of the bone and its extremities 

 is the same ; and the light specific weight of which I have 

 above spoken is equally to be found. We cannot judge of the 

 extent of the bicipital surface; for this last is unfortunately 

 broken. Besides, that we may better estimate the resemblance 

 between this bone and the humerus of the Pelican, I have had 

 one of these bones drawn*. 



The single fact of the presence of a Pelican in the Cambridge- 

 shire peat-bogs is of real interest ; but the study I have made 

 of the fossil bone in question gives something more. It pre- 

 sents, indeed, very considerable dimensions. I have already had 

 occasion to say that its articular extremities are imperfect ; con- 

 sequently it is not in its entirety, and evidently by the progress 

 of age it would become decidedly elongated. However that 

 may be, it measures about 37 centimetres [14'25 inches]. 

 Knowing the length of the humerus, we may easily deduce from 

 it the length of the whole wing ; for, in the Pelicans, the pro- 

 portions of the different bones which form the solid frame-work 

 of the fore limb vary but very little. Thus, if we suppose the 

 length of the humerus in these birds to be represented by 100, 

 that of the forearm would be 113, and that of the manus 78. 

 Consequently, allowing that in our Pelican of the peat-bogs the 

 proportion was the same, the forearm would have measured 

 42 centimetres, and the manus 29, which brings the whole 

 length of the wing without its feathers to 1'8 metre [about 3 

 feet 6 inches] . 



I have compared the fossil of the Cambridgeshire fens with 

 many humeri of adult Pelicans belonging to different species, 

 such as P. onocrotalus, P. crispus, P.philippensis, and P. thogus, 

 and I have not met with a single one of which the dimensions 

 were the same. The largest of P. onocrotalus hardly approach 

 it. Are we, then, to regard the bird of the peat-bogs as a dis- 



* [We are compelled to omit a reproduction of the plate, which gives 

 two views of the Cauibridgesliiro bono aud one of the humerus of the 

 recent Pelicanns onoo-otahts — all of the natiu'al size. — Ed.] 



