Philosophical Institute of Canterbury. . 431 
I cannot agree with Professor Alphonse Milne-Edwards, that the Zpyornis 
stands nearer to Dinornis than to the Ostriches, Cassowaries, and Emus, except 
that the fossil bones of Madagascar and New Zealand have a more pachydermal 
type than the recent species named. But I may point out that the fossil 
Dromornis australis of Australia shows similar characteristics, and I am sure 
if fossil remains of struthious birds in beds of post-pliocene age were 
discovered in Africa, America, and Asia, that they would exhibit a similar 
pachydermal character. 
Judging from Professor Milne-Edwards’ own excellent memoirs on 
Apyornis, and the fine casts of the unique fossil bones in the Paris Museum, 
which he was good enough to send to the Canterbury Museum, I am unable ` 
to trace their relationship with our Dinornithide. It appears to me that the 
Madagascar species are separated from the former by many fundamental 
differences, such as (to point out only a few) the pneumatie foramen in the 
femur and the straightness of the trochlez of the metatarsus. And, although 
І am convinced that the struthious character of Zpyornis has sufficiently been 
proved by the eminent Paris comparative anatomist, I can easily understand 
that there was at first some show of reason for placing it amongst the 
sarcoramphous vultures, as has been done by Professor Bianconi. 
However, speaking of the principle itself, I wish to. point out that if we were 
to decide, from a few isolated species in two distant countries which show some 
or even a close resemblance to each other, that these countries must have once 
been connected in some way, we should in many instances form erroneous 
conclusions, We might as well say that, because there are struthious birds in 
‘Australia, the Malay Archipelago, Africa, America, and Asia, all these 
countries must have been connected with New Zealand ; or because Marsupial 
remains have been found in secondary rocks in Europe, and several species 
of opossums are living in America, these countries had also been united with 
Australia. 
Speaking from a general point of view, I wish to add that the attempts to 
trace the geographical relations of a fauna and flora of a country can easily be 
exaggerated, and thus a theory be ridden to death which otherwise would be 
very useful. Moreover, an unfortunate country, such as New Zealand, of 
which a good number of the species of its fauna and flora show great resemblance 
to other species from distant countries, has to be dipped down and brought 
up again a great many times, in order to establish connections in various 
directions, so that a bird or fish, a shell, insect, or centipede, might cross from 
the one to the other without allowing, moreover, any other species from the 
same country to pass. Besides, the geological record of these islands at 
present at our disposal does not warrant us in assuming such repeated changes 
in the level of the land. 
