
ond 
much bent forward. The ectocondyle (Pl. CIV. fig. 6, ¢) is broader in proportion 
to its length, the entotuberosity (ib. fig. 5, ¢) is more produced backward, and the 
pneumatic ridge (fig. 1, @) is more produced inward, in the humerus of Zachyeres than in 
that of Cereopsis and Cnemiornis. In these characters of the bone, the extinct flightless 
Anserine of New Zealand more resembles the Australian than the Magellan genus. 
The ulna in my present illustrations of Cnaemiornis belongs, like the coracoid, to the 
left side, It is entire (ib. figs. 7 & 8), is relatively shorter, but much thicker, than the 
ulna of Zachyeres, and is absolutely shorter, and relatively much shorter and thicker, 
than is the ulna of Cereopsis. It exceeds these bones in both species, as well as in any 
other existing Lamellirostral, in the definition and prominence of the parts of the 
exterior and convex surface of the shaft for the attachment of “ secondary ” quill-feathers 
and the **tectrices prime.” ‘These marks are of two kinds, cavities and prominences. 
The cavities (fig. 7, 1), fourteen in number, extend in a single series along the entire 
shaft: they are elliptical in shape, about 3 lines by 2 lines in dimension, more feebly 
impressed along the middle and distal end of the shaft, some touching each other, others 
with intervals of half a line ora line. The prominences (ib. 7, 7) are developed from a 
ridge, external to the cavities, beginning one fourth of the bone’s length from its 
humeral end, and terminating opposite the penultimate cavity. The prominences, nine 
in number, are from 2 to 3 lines apart. The ridge (fig. 8, c) extending the articular 
cavity for the ulnar condyle of the humerus, and overhanging the surface of attachment 
of the * brachialis internus” is more produced and extensive than in Cercopsis. ‘The 
olecranon (¢) is relatively rather more produced; the rest of the proximal surtace 
(fig. 9) closely accords with the anserine type. The surface (/’) for the attachment of 
the lateral ligament, and the larger one below (g) for the insertion of the “ brachialis 
anticus,” are well defined; but the latter is less deep than in Cereopsts. Both articular 
terminal ends are less expanded in proportion to the shaft, and especially so the distal 
end, than in Cereopsis. ‘The radial prominence is less produced. 
My specimen of the composite bone called “metacarpus ” (ib, fig, 10) is rather 
larger than the one figured by Dr. Hector, agreeing in this respect with the associated 
humerus. Like that wing-bone also, it is characterized by its breadth and thickness, 
which, in proportion to the length of the metacarpus, are much greater than in 
Cereopsis or Tachyeres. ) 
The number and nature, or homologies, of the constituents of this bone were deter- 
mined by its analysis in a young Ostrich, in my work * On the Nature of Limbs’ (1849), 
and in the description of the specimen No. 1367 in the * Catalogue of the Osteological 
Specimens in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons * (4to, p. 265). The meta 
carpus in the Bird consists, like the metatarsus, of three metacarpal bones coalesced with 
each other and with part of the carpus. As the latter element is mainly and more directly 
in articular relation of support to the “ medius” metacarpal (Pl. CLV. fig. 10, m, 111), and 
at the same time presents a convex articular surface to the two non-confluent carpals of the 
