1903. ] OSTRICH FROM THE ISLAND OF SAMOS, 209 
features lose their systematic value. But I have shown that the 
latter had really already lost their importance because of their 
individual variation. 
The species Struthio karatheodoris Maj. is therefore to be kept 
separate. 
What are the relations between S. karatheodoris and S. asiaticus 
from the Siwalik Hills? I can now give further information 
on S. asiaticus. A comparison of the fossils with the figures on 
the unpublished plate R of Falconer’s ‘ Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis,’ 
and those accompanying Davies’ ' paper and Lydekker’s” deseription, 
did not reveal any differences, except that the drawings in 
Falconer’s Atlas are much better than the others. Davies found 
that the principal difference between S. asiaticus and S. camelus lies 
in the greater stoutness of the cervical vertebre in the former ; 
and Lydekker kept the two species separate only on account of 
this feature. The answer to the question, whether the greater 
stoutness of the sacral vertebrae on one side and that of the cervical 
vertebree on the other indicates a special relationship, cannot be 
given now. There is no evidence for such relations; and tor 
my part, consider this character in the fossil forms (compared with 
the modern Ostriches) only as more primitive. 
There may be reason to unite the two forms in one species ; but 
considering their different geological ages’, I think it will be better 
not to do so. But there can be no doubt that Struthio asiaticus 
is in direct relation with S. karatheodoris, i.e. that the former is 
a descendant of the latter, as Dr. Major‘ supposes the whole 
Siwalik fauna to be a later and transformed generation of the upper 
Miocene fauna of Pikermi and Samos. 
It is noteworthy therefore that S. karatheodoris and S. asiaticus 
give us no evidence for a specialisation of the Struthionids in 
Southern Eurasia’, and a consequent emigration into Southern 
Kurope, Syria, and Africa, but support rather the view that the 
order of migration took place in the opposite direction. However, 
the genesis of the Struthionid cannot, as Burckhardt © is inclined 
to suppose, be associated with the Miillerornithide; for the 
geological age of the former is opposed to such an hypothesis. 
By the discovery of a Sérauthio in the island of Samos, the ege 
on which the species of Struthio chersonensis Brandt™ has been 
based is of some interest. Though the circumstances surrounding 
its discovery may be somewhat obscure, yet the size and proportions 
show that it cannot be the egg of a modern Ostrich; that it really 
1 Davies, Geol. Mag. 1880, 2 Lydekker, in Paleontologia Indica, 1884-86. 
3 Lydekker, Fossil Vertebrata of India: Records Geol. Survey, India, vol. xx. 1887. 
4 Op. cit. Comptes rendus des Séances de l’Acad. d. Sci., Oct. 1888. (An account of 
the fauna of Samos.) Atti della Societ’ Toscana di Scienze Naturali, Proc.-verbali, 
vol. v. 3 July, 1887, p. 272. (Letter addressed to Prof. Meneghini, in which 
Dr. Major shows the difference between the mammalian remains of Samos and tho 
of Kos.) be 
® Burckhardt, “ Uber Aepyornis,”’ Pal. Abh., Jena, 1893, p. 21. 
6 Burckhardt, “Das Problem des antarktischen Schépfungscentrums,” &c., Zool. 
Jahrbiicher, 1902, p. 26. 
7 Bull. Ac. Imp. Se. St. Pétersbourg, vol. xviii. 1873. 
14* 
