Philosophical Institute of Canterbury. 425 
refer to. Such a series would have afforded him at a glance a confirmation 
that the new arrangement which I venture to propose in the following notes 
` is not based altogether upon unsound principles. 
I am well aware that there are still many naturalists who think that the 
division of the bones of our extinct avifauna into so many species is a mistake, 
and that future researches will prove that what appeared to Professor Owen as 
several well-defined species were after all only various stages of age and growth 
of one and the same kind. However, in this respect the collections of the 
Canterbury Museum bear a strong confirmation of the correctness of the great 
English anatomist's conclusions. We possess, not only young bones of each 
species, from the chick to the full-grown bird, where—to take only one bone as a 
guide—the tarsal epiphysis of the metatarsus is not yet quite anchylosed,* 
but we have of each species a series of specimens of generally two distinct 
sizes, from which we may conclude that they represent the male and female ` 
bird of each species. In some instances, of which I shall speak more fully in 
the sequel, we possess of each species four distinct sizes, which might represent 
the two sexes of two distinct but closely allied species. - 
Although Professor Owen thinks that the back toe (hallux) was only a 
small functionless appendage to the foot, and that thus the existence or non- 
existence of such bone is of no consequence, and has, therefore, felt obliged to 
abandon this ground of generic distinction, ] am more convinced than ever 
that it is of great importance, and that the principal division of our extinct 
struthious birds has to be based upon this, as I believe, constant character.t 
If we add to this all the other distinctive features, which I shall enumerate in 
the sequel, such as the existence or non-existence of a bony scapulo-coracoid, 
the shape of the sternum and of the bill, and many others, the presence or 
absence of a hallux becomes of still more importance. 
hands, which showed that impression either only faintly or n r, of 
nna, articulated a small back trochlea with the skeleton of Dinornis ingens found in 
the Moa Cave of Nelson, but there is no evid that tl ll bone in question belonged 
i of the 
to it. In my first paper of measurements, on page 85 of the first volume 
Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, I have already pointed to the distinct 
species belonging to that family. It would be strange if this 
together with the rough grooves previously alluded to, should have misled me to draw 
wrong conclusions the 
м2 
