166 Misce llan eous, 



elaphus, C. capreolus, Sus scrofa, and Castor europceus. Finally, I 

 have been able to recognize several species of birds, such as the 

 swan (Cygnus ferus) , the wild duck {Anas boschas), the teal (Anas 

 querqucdula), the crested grebe {Podiceps cristatus), the bittern 

 {Ardea stellaris), and the coot (Fidica atra). These birds still occur 

 in great abundance on the east coast of England. Their presence 

 in the turbaries, therefore, cannot surprise us ; but this is not the 

 case with the pelican, which does not belong to the British fauna ; 

 for the few individuals which have been met with there had been 

 carried by the winds very far from the regions which they usually 

 inhabit. ISow the existence of our pelican in the peaty deposits of 

 Cambridge cannot be explained in this way. The bone in question 

 is derived, in fact, from a young bird, consequently too weak to 

 undertake a distant journey. A glance at the fossil the history of 

 which I am giving is sufficient to prove that the work of ossification 

 was not completed, as is indicated by the state of the articular ex- 

 tremities. We cannot, therefore, think for one moment that this 

 bird has quitted Africa or the south of Kussia, and, being turned 

 from its course by atmospheric currents, has come to die in England 

 upon the edge of the marshes in which the peaty layers in which it 

 was discovered were being deposited. Such an explanation as this 

 is inadmissible; and this pelican was evidently a native of that 

 country. 



The humerus here referred to is of very considerable dimensions. 

 Its articular extremities are imperfect ; it is not, therefore, entire, 

 and evidently with increased age it would have become considerably 

 elongated. IN^evertheless it measures about 37 centimetres. Know- 

 ing the length of the arm-bone, we may easily deduce from it that 

 of the entire wing ; for in the pelicans the proportions of the various 

 bones which form the solid framework of the anterior limb vary very 

 little. Thus, if we represent the length of the humerus of these 

 birds by 100, that of the forearm would be 113, and that of the 

 hand 78. Consequently, assuming that in our pelican from the 

 turbaries the proportions of these bones were the same, the forearm 

 would have measured 42 and the hand 29 centimetres, which brings 

 the whole length of the wing without its feathers to 1*08 metre. 



I have compared the fossil from the Cambridge turbaries \vith 

 several arm-bones of adult pelicans belonging to different species, 

 such as Pelecanus onocrotalus, P. crispus, P. philippinensis, and P. 

 thagus, but I have not found one the dimensions of which were the 

 same ; even the largest onocrotali scarcely approach it. Must we 

 therefore regard the bird from the turbaries as a distinct species, of 

 larger size ? This supposition seems a very probable one ; but it 

 would perhaps be premature to attempt at present to establish a 

 new specific type ; and before inscribing it upon our scientific cata- 

 logues, it seems to me that it will be more prudent to wait imtil 

 further researches have led to the discovery of some parts of the 

 skeleton of adult birds, which may make known to us more accu- 

 rately the proportions of our British pelican. — Comptes Rendus, 

 June 22, 1868, pp. 1242-1244. 



