438 Miscellaneous. 



j^pyornis was a rapacious bird, probably identical with Marco Polo's 

 roc. The absence of the hind toe seems to set this question at 

 rest. The probable height of the bird is 2 metres, about equal to 

 that of a large ostrich ; but, although it can no longer be regarded 

 as the tallest, it is at present, say the authors, " the stoutest, the 

 most massive, and the most elepliantine^^ of known birds. 



M. Grandidier's excavations furnished remains of several smaller 

 species of ^pyornis. One of these (called ^. medius) would appear 

 to have been of the size of the cassowary; another {^.modestus) about 

 as large as the great bustard. Thus there was formerly in Mada- 

 gascar a population of large terrestrial bii-ds, resembling in their 

 structure the Dinornis, Palapteryx, and Apteryx of New Zealand. — 

 Comptes Bendus, Oct. 11 1869, pp. 801-805. 



Reptile Remains and CHmaxodus. 

 To the Editors of the Anncds and Magazine of Natural History. 



Gentlemen, — In your issue for June last, you kindly permitted me 

 to describe a reptilian bone from the Northumberland Coal-measures. 

 In the short communication referred to I described the bone as a 

 malar of a Coal- measure Labyrinthodont. 



In your October issue Messrs. Hancock and Atthey, who have 

 contributed several j)apers to your pages, expressed their non- 

 acceptance of the correctness of my interpretation of the bone in 

 ' question, and adduced reasons for believing that it is the cranial 

 shield of Anthracosatirus. 



During my examination of the specimen I was not without doubt 

 respecting its identity ; and had the two sides of the plate of bone 

 been more nearly symmetrical, and the orbital spaces more perfect 

 and more nearly opposite to each other, I should have inferred that 

 it was a median bone. I have now, however, had all doubt as to 

 the character of the fossil removed, having had the opportunity of 

 ins])ecting a far more perfect cranial shield of a similar reptile, 

 which shows that some of the processes have been broken otF that 

 in my possession, and that, by pressure or otherwise, its form has 

 to some extent been altered. I therefore take the earliest oppor- 

 tunity of frankly acknowledging the general correctness of the 

 criticisms of the writers alluded to. 



Since writing the foregoing, I have seen an article by Messrs. 

 Hancock and Atthey in the November ' Annals and Magazine of 

 Natural History ' on CHmaxodus and Janassa, in which the writers 

 endeavour to prove that the teeth which have been so named be- 

 long to the same genus. The specimens in my possession and those 

 in the cabinets of three other palaeontologists do not corroborate 

 the opinions the writers have expressed. I have several specimens of 

 CUmaxodontes, varying in length from 1 inch to g an inch ; yet they 

 have an equal number of ridges, and are not twisted and bent in the 

 unsj'mmetrical manner represented in the ideal group of seven by 

 which the article is illustrated. As I have not, however, obtained 



