3 
ing epitrochanterian ridge (f'). In the above differences Dromornis more resembles 
Dromaius. 
The ectotrochanterian surface is slightly concave, bounded aboye by a low arched 
ridge, from which the rough convex epitrochanterian part of the surface ascended to 
the crowning ridge. In this character Dromornis resembles Dromaius, and differs from 
Dinornis. 
It resembles Dinornis, and differs from Dromaius, in the absence of the pneumatic 
foramen at the hind part of the upper expansion of the femur. This expansion is also 
relatively greater than in Dromaius, and recalls rather that of Dinornis; but the breadth 
of the ectotrochanterian tract is relatively less than in Dinornis gravis, and still less 
than in the exceptionally thick and massive femur of Dinornis elephantopus. The fore 
part of the upper femoral expansion has had its outer wall crushed in; but, in both the 
cast and the photograph, there is an indication of a rough subcircular tract, answering 
to that which is conspicuous in Dinornis (Pl. LVI. fig. 1, 7), but which is not present in 
Dromatus. 
The outer crust of the femoral wall has been crushed inwards at the distal third of 
the fore part of the shaft; but the rotular surface seems to have been broad and 
shallow. In the prominence and thick convexity of the fore part of the expansion of 
the outer condyle Dramornis resembles Dinornis rather than Dromaius. ‘The transyerse 
extent of the distal end, in proportion to the size of the shaft of the femur, is less 
than in Dinornis, but is greater than in Dromaius. 
The popliteal cavity (Pl. C. fig. 1, z) is oblique, and is deeper and better-defined, 
especially above, than in Dinornis; it is divided from the intercondylar cavity (v) by a 
ridge (w) similar to that in Dinornis, and which I do not find in Vromaius. 'The inter- 
condylar cavity or pit (v) is deep, and smaller than in Dinornis gravis; it is deeper, but 
much smaller, than in Dinornis elephantopus (loc. cit. pl, 45. fig, 3). ‘There is a rough 
“luteal” depression (ib. fig, 1, #), less deep than in Dinornis gravis, and situated 
nearer the popliteal cavity, and with a more posterior aspect than in Dinornis 
elephantopus. 
The mutilation of the prominent parts of both femoral condyles precludes further 
profitable comparisons of the fossil under consideration. 
But from those for which it affords sufficient grounds, I infer that in its essential 
characters this femur resembles more that bone in the Kmu than in the Moa, and that 
the characters in which it more resembles Dinornis are concomitant with, and related 
to, the more general strength and robustness of the bone—from which we may infer 
that the species manifested dinornithic strength and proportions of the hind limbs, 
combined with characters of closer affinity to the existing smi!'«r, more slender-limbed, 
and swifter wingless bird peculiar to the Australian contine, 
' I ean now repeat with more confidence the remark in my Memoir oo  4,upterye ;—* No remnant of a 
Dinornis bas yet been found in any of the contiguous islands; and 1 haye is sin searched for such in the eol- 
lections of post-pliocene fossils from Australia.”—Anie, p). 130. 
