662 
in the latter characters, the plantar perforation being exceedingly small ; not greater 
than the diameter of an ordinary pin. In all probability Z). gracilipes was not only 
smaller than the Emu, but also more attenuated in the proportions of its limb. 
Loc. and Sorizon. Darling Downs (G W. De Vis — Colin. Queensland Mus.) — 
Fluviatile deposits. 
Family— DINOENITHID^. 
Genus — DINORNIS, Owen, 1844. 
(Trans. Zool. Soc., iii., Pt. 3, 235.) 
DtNOKNIS QUEENSLAJS-Diai, Be VlS. 
Dinornis queenslandicG, De Vis, Proc. R, Soc. Queensland, 1884, i., Pt. 1, p. 23, t. 3 and 4. 
„ „ Lydekker Cat. ross. Birds Brit. Mus., 1891, p. 222. 
„ ,, Be Vis, New Zeiibrid Journ. Sci., 1891, i. (2), No. 3, p. 97. 
Ohs. The presence of a species of Moa during Post-Tertiary times in Queensland 
has been inferred by Mr. C. W. De Vis from the characters of a struthious femur in the 
Queensland Museum. The specimen presents precisely the measurements of Dinornis 
crassus, Owen, and Mr. De Vis adds — “ The large air channel into the interior bone of 
the Emu, so intimately connected with the excursive habits of the typical birds, is wanting 
in all the fossils under consideration, but in the Moa, and in our fossil alike, it is fore- 
shadowed by three small foramina just beneath the hinder edge of the neck The 
chief particulars in which the femur differs from that of Dromornis, are a long 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 E. Owen from 
that of Dromornis, and in all of them bur fossil agrees almost exactly with the femurs 
of D. crassus and D. elephant opus." 
I am indebted to the courtesy of Mr. De Vis for a reproduction of this fragmentary 
bone. A very careful comparison with the femur of a Dinornis and with the type of 
Dromornis compels me to admit the close resemblance between his bone and the former. 
On it Mr. E. Lydekker also remarks — “ This specimen appears indistinguishable 
from the femora of true Dinornithidse, and is quite different from the femur of 
Dromornis." 
Loc. and Horizon. King’s Creek, Darling Downs (J. Daniels — Colin. Queensland 
Mus.) — Fluviatile deposits. 
Family— APTEETGIDiE. 
Genus— METAPTEBYX, De Vis, 1892. 
(Proc. Linn. Soe. N. S. Wales, vi. (2), Pt. 3, p. 453.) 
Metapteetx bierons, De Vis. 
Meiapicryx hifronSf De Vis, Loc, ciLy p, 453, fc. 23, f. 8 a and 5. 
Ohs. The distal half of atarso-metatarsus,on careful comparison with the similar 
bone in the Apteryx, seems to “justify the conclusion that in spite of all our preconcep- 
tions this Australian relic represents a bird having a decided family relationship with 
the Apterygidse of New Zealand.” The more striking features in which it appears to 
resemble the Apteryx are the great distal extension of the pedicels of the trochlese, a 
like equality in the length of the opposed surfaces of the lateral pedicels, and the exten- 
sion of the mesial trochlea beyond the extremities of the other two, &c. It is, however, 
not an Apteryx, as is evinced by the absence or rudimentary state of the hind toe, the 
