26 



THE OOLOGIST. 



may judge from the posterior part which is 

 preserved. The interspaces'^ the trochleas 

 are wider posteriorly in iEpyornis, and the 

 outer one is more angular atits npper end. 

 The middle portion of the posterior surface 

 of the lower third of the shaft of the nieta- 

 tarse in iEpyornis is more produced than 

 in Dinornis, and a ridge is continued from it 

 to each lateral trochlea, dividing the back 

 part of the shaft above them into three sur- 

 faces; whereas the corresponding surface in 

 Dinornis is simply flat from side to side. 

 Above this part in iEpyornis the posterior 

 surface on each side of the middle promin- 

 ence is concave and meets the anterior sur- 

 face at a ridge which is narrowest at the 

 outer border of the bone. In Dinornis 

 both borders of the lower third of the shaft 

 are thick and rounded. 



'The iEpyornis does not show any trace 

 of the rough tract for attachment of a back 

 toe, as in the Palapteryx robustus ; in this 

 respect it resembles the Dinornis. , At six 

 inches from the lower end of the shaft be- 

 gins to be concave along the middle of the 

 forepart, the concavity deepening as it 

 ascends ; whereas in Dinornis the anterior 

 median concavity of the shaft does not be- 

 gin to appear until above the upper half of 

 the bone. In this character the iEpyornis 

 resembles the Cassowary; but it differs from 

 the Cassowary in much narrower or shaTper 

 latteral margins of the shaft of the meta- 

 tarsus. Like the Cassowary, however, the 

 breadth of the shaft is greater in propor- 

 tion to that of the trochlea than in Dinor- 

 nis or Palapteryx. 



' It would be hazardous to conclude as to 

 the length of the entire metatarse from the 

 breadth of the distal end; for this is equal 

 in Dinornis giganteus and Palapteryx ro- 

 bustus, whilst the length of the metatarse 

 is 1 ft. 6 in. in the one, and 1 ft. 4 in. in 

 the other. I think it more probable, how- 

 ever, that JEpyornis had a shorter rather 

 than longer metatarse than the Dinornis 

 giganteus. 



' That its legbones were smaller is sig- 

 nificantly indicated by the difference of 

 size in the fibulas. 



Dinornis iEpyornis 



in. lin. in. lln. 



Longest diam. of u riper end 2 ll 2 9 



Shortest diam. of upper end 14 10 



' This bone in iEpyornis shows a flat, 

 full, oval articular facet on its tibial side, 

 of which there is no trace in Dinornis. 



' Upon the whole, therefore, Professor 

 Owen concluded that the iEpyornis maxi- 

 mus did not surpass in height or size the 

 Dinornis giganteus, and it was more prob- 

 ably a somewhat smaller bird. 



' The fragments of the egg of Dinornis or 

 Palapteryx — of what species of course can- 

 not be detirmined — show, after arriving 

 approximately at their size by a curve of 

 the fragments, that the shell was not only 

 absolutely thinner, but relatively much 

 thinner than the Ostrich, and afortiori 

 than in the iEpyornis. The air pores, also, 

 have a different form, being linear not 

 rounded, and the external surface is smooth- 

 er. 



'In the smoothness of the shell, the egg of 

 the Dinornis resembles that of the Apteryx ; 

 in the thickness of the shell and the com- 

 parative roughness of its exterior, the egg 

 of the iEpyornis more resembles that of the 

 Ostrich and Cassowary. 



' Is is most probable that the entire eggs 

 of the iEpyornis were excluded in the usual 

 fertile state, but had suffered such want of 

 interruption of the usual heat requisite for 

 their incubation as to have become addled. ' 



Professor Owen proceeds to give meas- 

 urements of the egg of the Apteryx. I re- 

 mark that Professor Owen makes the long 

 diameter of the Paris egg rather smaller 

 than M. Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, also 

 that the eggs of iEpyornis maximus and 

 Apteryx, both of which.T have in my collec- 

 tion now before me, present to the eye of 

 an oologist such extremely different appear- 

 ances, that to compare them and thence 

 draw a conclusion as if they were eggs of 

 the same species, would appear to lead to a 

 mistake. M. O. Des Murs, I believe, has 

 gone so far as to form a classification of 

 birds from their eggs. Without giving an 

 opinion on this idea, I will only say that 

 eggs do give very valuable information with 



