THE AUSTRALIAN NATURALIST. 53 
court altogether. However this may be, in proceeding to deal 
with the problem which confronted them, the first step taken 
was to eliminate the two-toed ostrich of Africa. So far there 
was no trouble, but it must be conceded that the task of 
‘determining the amount of, and striking a balance between, the 
affinities of the Australian bird, on the one hand with the South 
American emu, on the other with the cassowary, apparently 
received rather one-sided consideration from Captain Tench. 
In the second place undue importance was attached to the 
supposed height of the Australian bird (7 feet 2 inches from 
the end of the toe to the tip of the beak). That is to say, 
those who measured this bird had not seen it alive, and did not 
realise that the long axis of the body was not vertical but almost 
horizontal However, by putting the bird in an unnatural 
position, the height was ascertained to be 7 feet 2 inches; and 
then on comparing this with the measurements given by Gold- 
smith (7 feet, 6 feet, and 54 feet), strong argument seemed to 
be furnished for an alliance with the emu. The Australian 
bird on this scale was even bigger than the ostrich.* . 
Tn the third place it was correctly noted that the wings of 
the Australian bird were small and devoid of wing- 
plumes. It was recognised also that the feathers had an 
aftershaft; but as Goldsmith expressly says that very little 
was known about the South American emu, and that he had 
had difficulty in ascertaining its special peculiarities, Captain 
Tench seems to have felt justified in concluding that the 
feathers of the latter also possessed an aftershaft, but that 
Goldsmith had omitted to mention the fact. 
As to whether the verdict was in all respects a unanimous 
‘conclusion, we cannot now definitely decide, because, with two 
unimportant exceptions, the opinions of Tench’s colleagues were 
published some time after “hillip’s Voyage,” and the writers 
felt it more or less incumbent upon them to pay some deference 
to the views of Dr. Latham, as expressed in the “Voyage; ” or, 
as in the case of Dr. White’s account, a London editor intervened. 
But there seems to have been perfect agreement on one point, 
namely, that the Australian bird was the representative of a 
new species. Beside Tench’s account, the only other statements 
about the bird which finally passed beyond the writers’ control 
before the publication of “Phillip’s Voyage,” known to me— 
the exceptions referred to above—are furnished by Governor 
Phillip’s first despatch to Lord Sydney, and by a letter from 
‘Captain Hill to Mr. Wathen. The former states that . 
“a bird as large as the ostrich was killed while I was at Broken 
Bay. It differs both from the ostrich and the emu.”+ The 
latter says—‘The plumage of the birds is uncommonly beau- 
tiful, some of which (as I am informed) are a new species, or 
*See the curious figure given by Collins. Vol. ii,, p. 307. 
+Historical Records, Vol, i,, Part 2, p. 135, (under date 15th May, 1788). 
