260 
continuous as in D. crassus; but the shape of the tract is like that in no. 1 and in 
D. rheides. 
A portion of the right side of a sternum, which appears to be part of the same bone 
as no. 1, shows a continuation of the lateral process in the same direction relative to 
the contour of the costal border as in D. rheides. A corresponding portion of another 
sternum, no. 6 in lot 16, shows a divergence of the lateral process from the line of the 
costal border like that in the sternum of D. robustus, D. elephantopus, and probably 
also D. crassus, to which nos. 2 & 5 may have belonged. Assuming that nos. 1 & 3 are 
parts of the same sternum, it is certainly of another species, which probably may be 
D. casuarinus; the portion no. 4 belongs to a different species, and the portion no. 6 
to a different individual of, perhaps, D. crassus; but four distinct birds, at least, must 
have contributed the fragments of sternum ascribed to the skeleton of D. crassus in 
Dr. Haast’s list. 
A more important contribution to the reconstruction of the extinct wingless birds of 
New Zealand has been made by the eminent State Geologist of Canterbury Settlement, 
by a series of photographs of skeletons obtained from the Glenmark Marsh, and pre- 
served articulated in the Museum at Christchurch. From the front view of that of 
the Palapteryx robustus I infer that the remark, that “the attempted restoration of the 
sternum of a large species referred to Dinornis may, however, belong to Palapteryx 
robustus” (p. 197), is correct. The divergence of the lateral processes, though less 
than in Palapteryx elephantopus and Pal. crassus, is greater than in Dinornis giganteus 
and D. rheides. ‘To this series of photographs I propose to return in a subsequent 
Memoir, after completing the comparison of the collection of Dinornithic remains 
transmitted by Dr. Haast. 

