252 
ment of the ligamentum teres is as if a slice of the convexity had been cut off obliquely 
from its most prominent part backward and a little upward, so that no part of this sur- 
face appears in a direct front view; and it is slightly, if at all, depressed; part of this 
large flat surface had been broken away in the specimen figured (Pl. LXXIX, fig, 1). 
In the few femora of the general size attributable to Din. maximus there are varia- 
tions in the relations of the circumference of the shaft to the length of the bone, and in 
one instance (the femur from Mr, Joseph) in the proportion of the breadth of the distal 
end. In the instance (Mr. Joseph’s) where this end of the bone is narrower, the back 
part of the inner condyle is much narrower, and is more conyex and more backwardly 
produced. ‘The form of the popliteal space also differs. In Plate LX XIX., and the 
majority of femora of Dinornis, it is a deep oblong oval pit, definitely excavated, the 
larger end toward the inner posterior tuberosity of the linea aspera,” and deepening to 
the back ridge of the inner condyle, which extends toward the outer one. In the 
femur from Mr. Joseph the depth of the popliteal pit is due to the backward projection 
of the condyles and their uniting posterior ridge, dividing the popliteal from the in- 
ferior intercondylar fossa, which is unusually deep, The modification of the distal end 
of the less robust femur (from Mr. Joseph) is, indeed, such as to suggest a specific dif- 
ference. The trochanter, also, rises more abruptly, is higher, and the outer ridge of the 
antero-superior pit is unusually prominent, 
Tibia. (Plate LX XX.) 
Of the tibia (Pl. LXXX.) there need only to be given the dimensions, taken in 
accordance with those which haye been previously recorded of the Dinornis giganteus 
and other species'. All the characters of the bone which distinguish it generically as 
of Dinornis are closely repeated in the present specimen. 
Metatarsus. (Plate LX XIX. figs. 3 & 4.) 
The same remark applies to the metatarse (Pl. LX XTX, fig, 3); but between that 
bone in Major Michael's series and the one in Dr. Lillie’s there are differences of pro- 
portion (probably within the limits of individual variety), which may be mainly appre- 
ciated by comparison of the outline of the latter (tig. 4) added to the Plate (LXXIX,) 
which contains the finished lithograph of Major Michael’s specimen (fig. 3), 
Dr, Lillie’s specimen is longer and more slender, but with a greater transverse expan- 
sion of the distal end, The back part of the middle articular trochlea at the distal end 
projects more abruptly in Dr. Lillie’s specimen; but the generic characters of the meta- 
tarsus of Dinornis are closely maintained in both specimens, 
Subjoined are dimensions of the three chief bones of the hind limb of the present 
enormous species (DY. maximus), together with those of the same bones in Dinornis 
giganteus. 
1 Page 83, 

