262 MR. W. P. PYCRAFT ON THE MORPHOLOGY AND 
distance of the pterygoid. If this proximal extension were carried back sufficiently far 
to enable the vomer to join the pterygoid the resemblance to the Dromeine type would 
be really striking. 
If we turn now to the palate of Rhea, and compare this with that of Dromeus, we 
shall find the differences more decidedly marked. ‘The peculiar and almost complex 
relations which obtain between the palato-pterygo-vomerine articulations have already 
been described in these pages (p. 206), and are sufficiently distinct to render further 
comparisons unnecessary. 
But the palate of Rhea is curiously similar to that of Dinornis and the Tinamous. 
So similar as to render it probable that these are related more closely one to another 
than to Dromaus or Struthio. 
The affinity of Rhea to the Dinornithide has already been hinted at by Beddard, 
though upon different grounds. In discussing the position of Struthio, he remarks that 
though “this is removed far from the Dinornithide, as well as from other Ratites, by 
the structure of its palate, which diverges much,..... it is not clear that Rhea is so 
remote; the existence of an apparent homologue of the maxillo-nasal bone..... isa 
point of somewhat striking likeness to Emeus.” 
Nathusius, again, in studying the egg-shells of Rhea and Dinornis, was so impressed 
with the likeness between them that he proposed to unite them in the same genus. 
Parker [73], however, strangely enough, remarks: “I know of no character in the 
skull of Rhea by which it definitely approaches the Moas..... ” I say strangely 
enough advisedly, for I feel sure that had Parker’s attention been drawn to the points 
to which attention is directed in this paper he would have grasped its significance and 
written quite otherwise. 
About the palate of pyornis we as yet know nothing. In the roof of its skull it 
resembles the Dinornithidew, inasmuch as, just as in this group, there are no out- 
standing supra-orbital processes to the Jachrymal. In some other points it resembles 
Struthio; but since in its pelvis and other points it closely resembles Dinornithide, 
I am inclined to place it near this group. 
The palate of the Tinamous is truly Dromawognathous, but approaches the Neo- 
gnathine type, tending towards schizognathism. In its pterygo-palatine articulation, 
as 1 have already pointed out (p. 208), it closely approaches the Neognathe, the 
palatine having shifted from contact with the body of the pterygoid to form a 
connection more or less intimate with its tip. 
The palate of Apteryx in the peculiar forked pterygoid and the complexity of the 
relations between it and the palatine and vomer seems to differ markedly from all the 
other Palwognathe, or, indeed, from all living birds. 
Here, again, is a conclusion diametrically opposed to that of Parker. Whether or 
not I failed to appreciate the points of resemblance Parker claims must remain to be 
seen. This discrepancy is certainly remarkable, and will seem to cast doubt upon the 
