EASTMAN: FOSSIL AVIAN REMAINS FROM ARMISSAN 137 
SUPPLEMENTARY NOorTkE. 
Since the above description was set in type, the task of working out the second 
bird skeleton (Cat. No. 2022), referred to above on page 134, has been skilfully per- 
formed by Mr. O. A. Peterson, one of the preparators of the Carnegie Museum. In 
its original condition many of the bones were only partially visible, and portions of 
them had been injured by the process of sawing or grinding to which the slab had 
been subjected prior to its acquisition by the Museum. As the result of Mr. Peter- 
son’s manipulation all of the preserved portions have been clearly exposed, thus 
permitting a far more accurate knowledge of details than could otherwise have been 
obtained. Fortunate as is this circumstance, it renders all the more conspicuous the 
fact that many characteristic portions, such as the articular extremities of several 
of the limb-bones, have been irretrievably lost through sawing the slab in two.! 
Notwithstanding the considerable injury done to the remains, they still furnish 
us with an important and very precious example of Eocene bird remains. The ex- 
treme rarity of complete individuals, not more than four or five being known from 
the Armissan deposits, increases the value of every item of information that is 
obtainable from any one of them. In the case of the present specimen, the loss of 
the head deprives us of perhaps the most significant information, concerning which 
we would have eagerly sought enlightenment. It remains for us to make as search- 
ing an inquiry as is possible from a decapitated body. 
Fortunately we are able to satisfy ourselves in regard to a number of particulars 
with approximate accuracy. The conformation of the pelvis, typically gallinaceous, 
and the form and proportions of the limb-bones, all point to a very close relation- 
ship between this skeleton and the type species of Taoperdix. Indeed, it appears 
impossible to doubt that the present specimen and the type of T. pessieti are specifi- 
cally identical, the differences between them falling well within the limits of indi- 
vidual variation. This conclusion is supported, in our judgment, by the following 
table of measurements, in which it has not been considered necessary to repeat the 
measurements of T. keltica, owing to their relatively greater disproportion. The 
same characters which enable us to discriminate between that species and the type 
compel us to distinguish between it and the second Carnegie skeleton now under 
discussion. A protographic reproduction of the new specimen (No. 2022), of slightly 
less than the natural size, is given in Plate XV. of this Memoir. In Plate XVI. 
several characteristic bones are shown as they occur in nature, except that in the case 
1 The specimen is evidently a piece of pavement slab, which was only discovered to contain fossil remains after it 
had been sawn. Editor. 
