BY C. W. DE VIS. 



27 



sloping neck, constricted at its junction with the head, a full and 

 irregularly oval shaft and a broad outer trochanterian surface. 

 These are precisely the characters by which the corresponding 

 part of the thigh bone of Dinornis is differentiated by Sir R. Owen 

 from that of Dromornis, and in all of them our fossil agrees almost 

 exactly with the femurs of D. crasus and D. elephantopus. It 

 is needless to recapitulate its differences from Dioma^us since 

 the divergencies of Dromaeus from Dromornis are but exagger- 

 ations of those of the latter from Dinornis. With Dinornis in 

 direct comparison it agrees not only in the salient features referred 

 to, but in most of its subordinate characters, for example, in the 

 linear condition of the lesser trochanter, (/. mi.) and the three 

 foramina beneath the hinder edge of the neck. At the same 

 time our fossil has distinguishing marks of its own. Of similar 

 dimensions to D. crassus and similar massive form to D. 

 elephantopus it differs from the former sufficiently in its slenderer 

 head and neck and deeper saddle between the head and tro- 

 chanter, and from the latter abundantly in detailed measurements. 

 These differences from its nearest allies taken in conjunction with 

 its continental habitat, leave us, we may conclude, no alternative 

 but to regard it as specifically distinct from any Dinornis on record. 

 Its habitat emboldens us to propose for it the name D. Queenslan- 

 dise not with any idea that it was a species restricted in its range to 

 north-east Australia, but merely that the name, like that of 

 Nototherium Victorise, may remind us of the colony that gave 

 the first hint of its existence. 



The moas have lived in New Zealand almost down to our 

 own days, and the presence of Dromornis and Dinornis in Aus- 

 tralia shows that on the main land this heavy-limbed branch of 

 the struthious stock is comparatively ancient. It has, indeed, a 

 moUuscan longevity. It was a contemporary of fresh water 

 shells which were here before the surface of the land was 

 modernized, and are here now while we examine the feathers and 

 tendons of the last of the moas. The Australian species were in 

 all likelihood exterminated long ages ago, for we nowhere find 

 their remains strewed and heaped on the surface, nor their des- 

 truction traceable to human agency. The absence of carnivorous 

 mammals has been held sufficient to account for their longer sur- 

 vival in New Zealand, but how is that absence itself to be ex- 

 plained, more especially now that we find on the continent bones 

 of Dinornis, Thylacinus, Sarcophilus, and of the dog lying in ap- 

 parently the same drift. The migration of the beasts of prey was 

 surely as easy as that of the sluggish, wingless birds. 



1 



