PEOFESSOE OWEN ON THE aENITS DINOENIS. 383 



ing epitrochanterian ridge (/'). In the above differences Bromornis more resembles 

 Drmnaius. 



The ectotrochanterian surface (PI. LXII. fig. 2) is slightly concave, bounded above by 

 a low arched ridge, from which the rough convex epitrochanterian part of the surface 

 ascended to the crowning ridge. In this character Bromornis resembles Bromaius, and 

 differs from Binornis. 



It resembles Binoniis, and differs from Bromaius, in the absence of the pneumatic 

 foramen at the hind part of the upper expansion of the femur. This expansion is also 

 relatively greater than in Bromaius, and recalls rather that of Binornis ; but the breadth 

 of the ectotrochanterian tract (PL LXII. fig. 2) is relatively less than in Binornis gravis, 

 and stni less than in the exceptionally thick and massive femur of Binornis elephan- 

 topus. The fore part of the upper femoral expansion has had its outer waU crushed in ; 

 but, in both the cast and the photograph, there is an indication of a rough subcircular 

 tract, answering to that which is conspicuous in Binornis (loc. cit. pi. 48. fig. 1, ?), but 

 which is not present in Bromaius. 



The outer crust of the femoral wall has been crushed inwards at the distal third of 

 the fore part of the shaft (PL LXII. fig. 1, t) ; but the rotular surface seems to have 

 been broad and shallow. In the prominence and thick convexity of the fore part of 

 the expansion of the outer condyle Bromornis resembles Binornis rather than Bromaius. 

 The transverse extent of the distal end, in proportion to the size of the shaft of the 

 femur, is less than in Binornis, but is greater than in Bromaius. 



The popliteal cavity (PL LXIII. fig. 1, z) is oblique, and is deeper and better-defined, 

 especially above, than in Binornis ; it is divided from the intercondylar cavity {v) by a 

 ridge (w) similar to that in Binornis, and which I do not find in Bromaius. The inter- 

 condylar cavity or pit (») is deep, and smaller than in Binornis gravis ; it is deeper, but 

 much smaller, than in Binornis elephantopus {loc. cit. pi. 43. fig. 3). There is a rough 

 " gluteal " depression (PL LXIII. fig. I, x), less deep than in Binornis gravis, and 

 situated nearer the popliteal cavity, and with a more posterior aspect than in Binornis 

 elephantopus. 



The mutilation of the prominent parts of both femoral condyles precludes further 

 profitable comparisons of the fossil under consideration. 



But from those for which it affords suf&cient grounds, I infer that in its essential 

 characters this femur resembles more that bone in the Emu than in the Moa, and that 

 the characters in which it more resembles Binornis are concomitant with, and related 

 to, the more general strength and robustness of the bone — from which we may infer 

 that the species manifested dinornithic strength and proportions of the hind limbs, 

 combined with characters of closer affinity to the existing smaller, more slender-limbed, 

 and swifter wingless bird peculiar to the Australian continent'. 



' I can now, in 1872, repeat with more confidence the remark in my Memoir of 1846:—" No remnant of a 

 Binornis has yet been found in any of the contiguous islands ; and I have in vain searched for such in the col- 

 lections of post-pHocene fossils from Australia." — Trans. Zool. Soc. vol. iii. p. 366. 



