64 ME. C. W. ANDREWS ON THE SETTLE AND 



is deeply concave from side to side, giving the symphysial region a spout-like form. 

 Behind the convexity of the symphysial region the ventral edge of each ramus is 

 anteriorly slightly concave and posteriorly rather strongly convex. The upper borders 

 of the rami are at first convex and sharp-edged, behind this, as far as the small coronoid 

 process, they are straight and blunt. Behind the coronoid process the edge slopes 

 down to the articular cup for the quadrate. The facets on this are two in number, one 

 external and elongated, one inner and rounded in outline ; both are concave from before 

 backward, and they are separated by a deep fossa, but no pneumatic foramina are 

 present. There is a large and very prominent internal angular process ; the inferior 

 angle is broken away, but it can only have formed merely a slight projection. Just 

 beneath and in front of the coronoid process the mandible is perforated by a very large 

 vacuity. 



Comparison of the Skull of Phororhacos with that of other Birds. 



Comparison of the skull of Phororha cos with that of the Struthious birds at once 

 excludes the possibility of any affinity between it and them. The form of the palate, 

 in which, as already described, the palatines and pterygoids both articulate with the 

 rostrum, the reduction or absence of the vomer, and the double head by which the 

 quadrate articulates with the skull, are all points not occurring in any Ratite bird. 



It then remains to determine what are the closest allies of Phororhacos among the 

 Carinatse, a question of which any satisfactory solution is very difficult. 



Taking the palate first for comparison, we find that it presents in some respects a 

 very remarkable resemblance to that of certain Tubinares, especially the Albatross 

 {Diomedea). In this bird, as in Phororhacos, the maxillo-palatine plates together with 

 the anterior region of the palatines form on either side a very prominent ridge, 

 projecting considerably below the level of the tomium, the form of which also is very 

 similar in the two birds. The palatines and pterygoids are also similar to those of the 

 fossil in their relations one to another and to the rostrum ; but the palate differs much in 

 form, the internal lamina being much the larger, while in Phororhacos the reverse is the 

 case. There are a number of other important differences : thus, in Diomedea the palate 

 is schizognathous and the anterior end of the large vomer appears upon it ; there are 

 large supraorbital fossse. In Phororhacos the palate is desmognathous, the vomer is 

 inconspicuous, and there seem to have been no supraorbital fossae whatever, although 

 slight displacement of the large supraorbital plates of the lachrymal at first sight 

 gives the skull the appearance of having possessed them. Moreover, the form of the 

 antorbital fossa and that of the quadrate are different in many respects. In spite of 

 a certain similarity between the skulls, it does not seem that any close affinity exists 

 between Phororhacos and the Tubinares, and in fact, as will be seen below, the structure 

 of the limb-bones and pelvis lends no support whatever to any such relationship. 



Comparing the fossil with the skulls of various desmognathous types, one is at once 



