July 3. 1891.J 



SCIENCE. 



and robustness of the bone," but to its comparative solidity. 

 Again, the " dinornithic strength and proportions of the hind- 

 limbs'' is a reminder which should carry more weight tlian it 

 was probably intended to bear, but is nevertheless but a partial 

 statement of the fact, for it leaves out of consideration tlie great 

 difference in the relative proportions of the bone under examina- 

 tion. It is not that the bone is altogether larger or smaller in the 

 same ratios of length and breadth, but in different ratios, the dro- 

 mornis and dlnornis ratio being much -the same. The dromornis 

 femur is but one-third longer than that of the emu, yet its shaft 

 is twice as thick transversely, and its upper end is more than twice 

 as broad. With such bones the bird would probably have the gen- 

 eral appearance, the gait, and habits of a moa rather than those of 

 an emu. In short, dromornis exhibits at the least an intermediate 

 form between the moa and the emu, probably a nearer appi-oxi- 

 mation to the former than to the latter. 



After another interval of fifteen years a third dinorcithio bone 

 was picked up in King's Creek, on the Darling Downs, by Mr. 

 Daniels, and by him presented, with other contemporaneous fossils, 

 to the Queensland Museum. This again presents the upper end of 

 a thigh-bone, but minus the upper part of the great trochanter, 

 which appears to have been shorn off by the abrading action of 

 drift sand while the bone projected from the bed of a watercourse; 

 in other respects it is in excellent preservation. Repeated com- 

 parison of this bone with species of dinornis, with dromornis, 

 casuarius, dromseus, struthio, and rhea, has removed from the 

 mind of its describer all doubt of the former existence of the typi- 

 cal moa in Australia. To him it appears to resemble as closely 

 any one of the femurs from New Zealand as any two of these, 

 specifically different, resemble each other, a view which of course 

 implies the absence from it of features notably present in the emu 

 bone. The most important of these is one to which reference has 

 already been made. The " head " of the bone, or that hemispheii- 

 cal projection which fits into the corresponding cavity of the hip- 

 bone, stands out prominently in the moas, in consequence of the 

 neck behind it being somewhat long and of considerably dimin- 

 ished diameter ; whereas in the emu the neck is short and thick, 

 so that the limits of the head, especially on its upper surface, are 

 less distinguishable. In this feature, easier to recognize by inspec- 

 tion than by description, dromornis agrees with the emu, while 

 the Queensland moa exhibits the comparatively slender neck and 

 well-defined head of its New Zealand successors. It is not neces- 

 sary at this moment to insist upon the value of the several char- 

 acters which aid in the generic identification of this bone with 

 dinornis ; they are to be found by any one sufficiently interested 

 in the matter in the "Proceedings" of the Royal Society of 

 Queensland for 1884. To others a recapitulation of them would 

 be tedious. 



Unfortunately the identification has not yet been supported by 

 further testimony, a circumstance which can hardly be thought 

 surprising when the extreme slowness with which dinornithic re- 

 mains have been brought to light is borne in mind : three bones in 

 over half a century has been the rate of discovery hitherto. Adding 

 to these three others from which no precise information can be 

 derived, viz., two ribs provisionally referred to dromornis, and the 

 shaft of a femur too imperfect for determination, but certainly 

 not dromornis, and in all probability not dinornis, all the fossils 

 of this kind known to the writer have been mentioned. In a 

 fairly numerous collection of bones of contemporary birds the 

 paucity of such fossils is conspicuous, but it would hardly be safe 

 to infer from that circumstance that the birds themselves were 

 I'are. The most we can say is that they were not among the ordi- 

 nary frequenters of the lower levels in which the ossiferous drifts 

 of the period were accumulating. It is therefore with sustained 

 eagerness thatevery fresh tribute of bones is received and inspected, 

 since the hope is always present that they may contain some fui'- 

 ther proof of tlie reality of the Queensland moa, as convincing to 

 others as it would be welcome to the assertor. 



Be it at the same time observed that there is no reason why a 

 greater amount of proof should be demanded in this case than in 

 others. There is no inherent improbability involved by it so great 

 as to justify inordinate doubt, since the passage of dromornis into 

 dinornis is not so long and difficult a matter as to require for its 



accomplishment a new home and a geological remove. The only 

 objection to be raised against it is that it confirms and accentuates 

 the antecedent difficulty created by dromornis itself, — the difficulty 

 of accounting for the presence of moas in New Zealand under 

 their lately existing circumstances. It is not a mystery that they 

 should have been there at all, since it is anything but incredible 

 that a subsidence of ten or twelve thousand feet should — during 

 a geological age which has seen the whole Australian fauna pro- 

 foundly changed — have taken place in an area liable to volcanic 

 disturbance, such as we see effects of in Australia and feel the 

 throes of in New Zealand. Before that subsidence. Mount Cook, 

 from a height about equal to the Cordilleran peak of elevation, 

 Aconcagua, would have looked down and over continuous land 

 as far as the snow-capped mountains of Queensland, the view 

 unhindered by the intervening peak of Lord Howe's Island, — ■ the 

 refuge of Meiolanian reptiles once in communication with their 

 kinsfolk in Australia. The true difficulty is not the isolation of 

 New Zealand from Australia, but the strange isolation of the moas 

 from all other forms peculiar to Australian life. Why should 

 their stock alone have escaped to an eminence of the sinking sur- 

 face, or alone been introduced into the insulated land, or alone 

 survived some change in its life-conditions fatal to the rest ? The 

 moa in New Zealand is the question that calls for an explanation; 

 and in proof that it does call for an explanation, and is not to be 

 dismissed as a voiceless phantasy, we point to dromornis followed 

 (structurally) by dinornis in Australia, and we wait for its solution 

 in the work of New Zealand's naturalists. 



DESTRUCTIVE LOCUSTS. 



Since the great " grasshopper years " of 1873-76 there have 

 been frequent outbreaks of comparatively local species, as well 

 as a few cases in which small swarms of the Rocky Mountain locust 

 have flown out into the subpermanent region and have occasioned 

 some damage for a year or so. The most notable cases have been 

 the outbreaks of the lesser migratory locust in New Hampshire in 

 1883 and 1889, the extraordinary multiplication of the devastating 

 locust in California in 1885, the increase of local species in Texas 

 in 1887, the multiplication of a chance swarm of the Rocky 

 Mountain species in a restricted locality in Minnesota in 1888, and 

 last year's damage in Idaho by several non-migratory species com- 

 bined. 



For a number of years the first and second reports of the United 

 States Entomological Commission, which contained the results of 

 the labors of the commission upon the Rocky Mountain locust, 

 have been out of print, and yet with every renewed alarm caused 

 by locusts there has been a great demand upon the entomological 

 division of the United States agricultural department for informa- 

 tion, which could only be supplied by correspondence or by pub- 

 lishing the information in local newspapers. For a time the de- 

 mand was filled by supplying the annual report of the department 

 for 1877, which contained bodily the chapters upon remedies from 

 the first commission report. The supply of this document was 

 also soon exhausted. 



The fact that Mr. Bruner, in bis last summer's trip to Idaho, 

 investigated the latest rumors, and found that considerable dam- 

 age was being done, and that the farmers were not acquainted 

 with even the most rudimentary measures for protection and 

 remedy, showed the necessity of publishing a condensed and prac- 

 tical account of the species which become seriously injurious from 

 time to time, and of republishing in as brief form as possible the 

 matter on i-emedies and preventives from the reports mentioned. 

 The result is the publication by the government of a bulletin on 

 "Destructive Locusts," prepared by Professor C. V. Riley, gov- 

 ernment entomologist. This bulletin is, in fact, a reproduction 

 of matter already published but now inaccessible for dissemina- 

 tion, and which, from its nature, has a permanent value, together 

 with such additional facts as subsequent experience has revealed. 

 It contains no technical matter whatsoever, and the farmer will 

 be able to recognize the different species from the figures which 

 accompany the consideration of each. 



The portion which relates to remedies, while drawn up for use 

 against the Rocky Mountain locust, will apply in large part to 



