262 ME. W. P. PYCRAFT ON THE MOEPHOLOGY 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 Dromseine type would 

 be really striking. 



If we turn now to the palate of Rhea, and compare this with that of Dromceus, 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 Bhea 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 Dromceus or Struthio. 



The affinity of Bhea to the Dinornithidce 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 Dinornithidce, as well as from other Patites, by 



the structure of its palate, which diverges much, it is not clear that Bhea is so 



remote ; the existence of an apparent homologue of the maxillo-nasal bone is a 



point of somewhat striking likeness to Emeus." 



Nathusius, again, in studying the egg-shells of Bhea 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 Bhea 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 JEpyornis we as yet know nothing. In the roof of its skull it 

 resembles the Dinornithidce, inasmuch as, just as in this group, there are no out- 

 standing supra-orbital processes to the lachrymal. In some other points it resembles 

 Struthio ; but since in its pelvis and other points it closely resembles Dinornithidce, 

 I am inclined to place it near this group. 



The palate of the Tinamous is truly Dromceognathous, but approaches the Neo- 

 gnathine type, tending towards schizognathism. In its pterygo-palatine articulation, 

 as I have already pointed out (p. 208), it closely approaches the Neognathce, 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 Palceognathce, 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 



