lOO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE. 



short and thick, so that the limits of the head, especially on its upper 

 surface, are less distinguishable. In this feature, easier to recognize 

 by inspection than by description, Droniornis agrees with the Emu, 

 while the Queensland Moa exhibits the comparatively slender neck 

 and well-defined head of its New Zealand successors. It is not 

 necessary at this moment to insist upon the value of the several 

 characters which aid in the generic identification of this bone with 

 Dinornis — they are to be found by anyone sufficiently interested in 

 the matter in the Proceedings of the Eoyal Society of Queensland for 

 ] 884 — to others a recapitulation of them would be tedious. 



Unfortunately the identification has not yet been supported by 

 further testimony, a circumstance which can hardly be thought sur- 

 prising when the extreme slowness with which dinornithic remains 

 have been brought to light is borne in mind — three bones in over 

 half-a-century has been the rate of discovery hitherto. Adding to 

 these three, others from which no precise information can be derived, 

 viz., two ribs provisionally referred to Droniornis and the shaft of a 

 femur too imperfect for determination, but certainly not Droniornis, 

 and in all probability, not Dinornis, all the fossils of this kind known 

 to the writer have been mentioned. In a fairly numerous collection 

 of bones of contemporary birds the paucity of such fossils is conspi- 

 cuous, but it would hardly be safe to infer from that circumstance 

 that the birds themselves were rare. The most we can say is that they 

 were not among the ordinary frequenters of the lower levels in which 

 the ossiferous drifts of the period were accumulating. Is is therefore 

 with sustained eagerness that every fresh tribute of bones is received 

 and inspected, since the hope is always present that it may contain 

 some further proof of the reality of the Queensland Moa as convincing 

 to others as it would be welcome to its assertor. 



Be it at the same time observed that there is no reason why a 

 greater amount of proof should be demanded in this case than in 

 others. There is no inherent improbability involved by it so great as 

 to justify inordinate doubt, since the passage of Dromornis into 

 Dinornis is not so long and difficult a matter as to require for its 

 accomplishment a new home and a geological remove. The only 

 objection to be raised against it is that it confirms and accentuates 

 the antecedent difficulty created by Droniornis itself, the difficulty of 

 accounting for the presence of Moas in New Zealand under their 

 lately existing circumstances. It is not a mystery that they should 

 have been there at all since it is anything but incredible that a subsi- 

 dence of ten or twelve thousand feet should during a geological age 

 which has seen the whole Australian fauna profoundly changed, have 

 taken place in an area liable to volcanic disturbance such as we see 

 effects of in Australia and feel the throes of in New Zealand. Before 

 that subsidence, Mount Cook from a height about equal to the Cordil- 

 leran peak of elevation, Aconcagua, would have looked down and over 

 continuous land as far as the snowcapped mountains of Queensland, 

 the view unhindered by the intervening peak of Lord Howe's Island, 

 the refuge of Meiolanian reptiles once in communication with their 

 kinsfolk in Australia. The true difficulty is not the isolation of New 

 Zealand from Australia, but the strange isolation of the Moas from 

 all other forms peculiar to Australian life. Why should their stock 



