250 
MEMOIR 
ON TILE 
DINORNIS MAXIMUS. 

IN the letter of the date of February 15th, 1864, in which Dr. Hector, F.G.S., Pro- 
vincial Geologist of Otago, New Zealand, communicated to me the particulars of the 
discovery of the almost entire skeleton of the Dinornis, of which the skull and scapulo- 
coracoid arch are described (pp. 151-172), he remarked that “The skeleton was not 
that of one of the largest-sized Moas, the tibia, for instance, being only 27 inches in 
length, whereas I have frequently seen them as much as 36 inches.” 
The tibia of the specimen in the British Museum, which is the type of my Dinornis 
robustus, measures 32 inches in length; and it is probable that the difference in the 
length of the tibia of this specimen and that of the skeleton at York (27 inches) indi- 
cates the range of size as exemplified in individuals of different sexes of this species. 
I have, however, for some years, been cognizant of a species of Dinornis from the 
Middle Island of New Zealand, having a tibia rather exceeding the length stated by 
Dr. Hector, and of a thickness proportionally the same as in Dinornis robustus. In 
1858 the Duke of Argyll favoured me by sending for my inspection a tibia of this size, 
together with a femur and metatarsus of like proportions, and purporting to be of the 
same limb of a Dinornis, which bones had been transmitted to His Grace from the 
Middle Island, New Zealand, by the Rev. Dr. Lillie. With the liberal permission of the 
Duke, casts were taken from these bones for the British Museum, which have been 
exhibited in the Paleontological Gallery as of the “ Dinornis giganteus, var. maximus.” 
In 1861 I was favoured by Henry Joseph, Esq., with an inspection of a femur of a 
Dinornis of the dimensions of that of D. maximus, which had been found beneath drift- 
sand at Otago, New Zealand. 
In 1863 Professor Tennant, F.G.S., was so kind as to bring for my inspection the 
shaft of a femur of a Dinornis, from New Zealand, locality not stated, of the general 
dimensions of the two above specified, but heavier from some infiltration of mineral 
matter, and rather more robust. The least circumference, ¢. g., of the shaft of the 
femur in Dr. Lillie’s and Mr. Joseph’s specimens was 8 inches 1§ line; in Professor 
Tennant’s specimen it was 8 inches 9 lines. 
In March, 1867, I was favoured by Major J. Michael, of the Madras Staff Corps, with 
' Page 154. 
