429 
Its rudimental condition in respect of size is exemplified in the figure of the skeleton 
of Dinornis robustus (Plate XCVI. fig. 1), where it is shown in its natural connexion 
with the outer angle of the fore border of the sternum. 
The reduction of the side elements of the arch to their primitive type form, as ‘ pleur- 
apophysis’ (scapula) and ‘hemapophysis’ (coracoid), is replete with interest to the 
student of the vertebrate archetype; and it still remains a question whether to the 
ridge indicative of the articular cavity in more modified and developed conditions of 
the arch there might be attached an appendage serially homologous with those (epi- 
pleural plates) of succeeding costal arches, and specially homologous with the 
humerus !. 
Supposing it to be ultimately determined that the scapular arch, as well as its appen- 
dage, the wing, be developed in certain kinds of Moa and not in others, the question 
might be mooted whether a generic distinction could be sustained on such grounds, and 
whether a non-development of the rudimental scapular arch was coincident with a 
non-development of the rudimental hallux. Should such coincidence be ultimately 
demonstrated, the taxonomist would have stronger grounds for a genus Palapteryx, as 
well as a genus Dinornis, than have hitherto been afforded. 
But if the determination of acceptable genera of the Dinornithide has been opposed 
by the numerous specimens of bones discovered since the species were propounded, on 
characters yielded by a few bones, or by a single one, the addition of such specimens, 
by hundreds, to the Museums now established by the enlightened Colonists in the 
capitals of the several provinces of New Zealand have confirmed, in the main, such 
species. Such is the conclusion arrived at by Dr. y, Haast, of the province of Canter- 
bury, to whom Iam indebted for the photographs of the series of skeletons he has 
articulated for the Museum of Christchurch; and I may refer to the able article “On 
the Dimensions of Dinornis Bones” 2, by Captain F. W. Hutton, C.M.Z.S., for a similar 
encouraging result of the examination of the collection “of the remains of more than 
200 birds” of the Dinornithidw, now in the Museum of Otago, under his care. 
Of D. robustus aud D. ingens he remarks that the remains in this collection “ were 
too few to warrant certain conclusions, but they appear to be distinct species.” 
Dr. v. Haast’s materials have enabled him to express a more decided opinion. I should, 
however, have felt less surprise if the suggestion that they may be but local varieties of 
the same species had been sustained. 
Dinornis struthioides, of which evidences in the Otago Museum were “* much more 
common than of the other two” (viz. robustus and ingens), is, in Capt. Hutton’s 
opinion, a species “ very distinct and easily recognized from any other.” 
‘“‘ ] refer five metatarsi to D. rheides, but I was unable to find in the whole collection 
1 See the observations on this point at p. 170. 
* Trans, of the New-Zealand Institute, vol. vii. 1875, p. 274. 
