Letters, Announcements, fyc. 
99 
“ Pullns gallinaceus monstrosus, magnitudine pulli recens 
exclusi. Caput habebat anaticum, superius tamen magis in 
acumen desinens; rostrum anaticum latum, cujus superior 
extremitas deorsum inflexa : ocellos parvos, collum breve: 
alas parvulas juxta priora crura positas : quatuor crura galli- 
nacea: carebat pectore, quippe eo loco quo pectus esse de- 
bebat duo crura habens, quodlibet superius tres quadrantes 
digiti longum, inferius quadrantem: & in singulis quatuor 
digitos gallinaceos. Posteriora duo crura ejusdem figurse & 
longitudinis cum anterioribus mire posita erant, sinistrum 
quidem more naturali, dextrum vero in exortu suo sinistro 
erat adnatum & quasi sursum vergebat, eo modo quasi duo 
sinistra crura fuissent, & unum dextrum loco sinistri in 
exortu fuisset adglutinatum: atque ideo uropygio carebat, 
quia nullum intervallum inter crura bsec posteriora, & caudse 
loco ipsi sinistro cruri exterius longiusculi pili canescentes 
erant adnati. Pedes babebat gallinaceos & digitos eodem 
modo dispositos : sed quilibet pes totus inverso ordine positus 
erat, ita ut inferior pars esset superior & superior inferior, 
unguiculique etiam sursum non deorsum vergebant. Totum 
caput, collum, venter, alee, dorsum & superiora crura non 
vestiebantur pennis, sed pilis nigris semidigitum longis qui 
sub ventre & gutture paululum canescebant. In summa 
plane monstrosus pullus. Crura inferiora & pedes fusci 
coloris, uti & rostrum, vitalia viscera habebat gallinanacea, 
sed inordinate disposita. Cor magnum. Yivebat cum ex- 
cluderetur.” 
From these remarks it is evident that Marcgrav regarded 
the bird described by him as a monstrosity, and had no suspi¬ 
cion that any post-natal metamorphosis of the anterior limbs 
would be likely to take place. Nevertheless it is quite pos¬ 
sible that what be supposed to be a young chicken may have 
been a young Hoatzin, and in the figure which he gives the 
bill of the bird (if correctly drawn) is quite unlike that of a 
chicken. It is true that he write “ alas parvulas juxta priora 
crura positas;” but there is no trace of any rudimentary wings 
in the figure, and it is at least unlikely that there would have 
been three pairs of limbs. What Marcgrav mistook for 
