Canterbury and Westland. 433 



stated in the second memoir, H. assimilis may probably be the male of 

 H. Moorei, a point which the scanty material at my disposal, would 

 not allow me to settle satisfactorily. 



There are still some 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 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 well distinct sizes, 

 from which we may conclude that they represent the male and female 

 bird of such species. In some instances, we possess four distinct sizes, 

 which might represent the two sexes of two distinct but closely allied 

 species. 



Referring to the list of species, it will be seen that Professor Owen 

 includes all the Dinornithidce under one genus Dinornis, and abolishing 

 even his former genus Palapteryx, thinking that the back toe {Hallux) 

 was only a small f unctionless appendage to the foot. Although I was 

 of opinion that the back toe might prove a good distinctive character 

 for the grouping of the different genera, there seems, judging from the 

 discovery during the last few years of several nearly complete skeletons 

 in Otago and Canterbury, all probability that Professor Owen's views 

 on that point are correct. However, I believe there exist many 

 more distinctive features of great usefulness for the separation of 

 the principal groups, and that my attempt in 1874 to make such 

 divisions, is a step in the right direction. I then proposed the following 

 sub-divisions : — A. family Dinornithidce ; a. genus Dinornis. 1. Di- 

 nornis maximus. 2. Dinornis rooustus. 3. Dinornis ingens. 4. 

 Dinornis struthioides. 5. Dinornis gracilis ; h. genus Meionornis. 1. 

 Meionornis casuarinus ; 2. Meionornis didiformis. B. family Dalap- 

 terygidce; a. genus Dalapteryx. 1. Palapteryx elephant op us. 2. 

 Palapteryx crassus ; b. genus Duryapteryx. 1. Euryapterys gravis. 

 2. JEaryapteryx rlieides. 



* We possess amongst others, the leg bones of a specimen of Dinornis 7>mximus which is in size 

 ■only second to the largest bones we have, but in which this immature character in the metatarsus is 

 not yet quite effaced. 



