| OCR Text |
Show 894 MR. G. DAWSON ROWLEY ON ^PYORNIS. [Nov. 28, minated, as in tbe case of the Moa (Dinornis giganteus) in New Zealand." It is true that tbe pieces themselves present a subfossil appearance ; but this condition by no means indicates antiquity in all cases. I know a spring in the Isle of Wight which quickly gives any object a lithological aspect; and many others there are of the same kind. One thing is certain, the bird does not exist now. M. Grandidier is positive on this head. One most singular circumstance is, that all the seven eggs which I have seen (and I suppose it is the same with the others) were never hatched. I can only account for this on the supposition of their being what the Bechuanas of Africa call (in the case of the Ostrich) " Lesetla," and the Spaniards of South America (in that of the Rhea) " Nuachos," viz. solitary and abandoned eggs. This habit of the Struthionidce has not been assigned to any satisfactory reason. The AHpyornithidce may have had the same propensity. As regards the size of the largest Alpyomis and Dinornis, if we compare the dimensions of the JEpyornis egg and that of an Ostrich, (I quote a writer in the ' Field') " bearing in miiia that similar solids are to each other in the triplicate ratio of their dimensions, we see that if the egg of the Ostrich measures 6\ inches and that of AZpyornis 12| inches in the direction of their major axes, the size of the latter as compared with the former is (6^)3: (12|)3 : : 1 : 8." In certain cases, I admit, the height and bulk of the bird is not proportioned to the size of the egg. In two very different species (Cuculus canorus and Apteryx mantelli) they are not so. These are, however, special adaptations of nature, for purposes of her own, which are apparent to every one. In Cuculus the egg has to be hatched by a very small bird. In Apteryx it is necessary to retain the embryo long, as its apterous and defenceless condition requires it to be strong enough to escape danger at once. I confidently affirm it to be axiomatic to ornithologists, that large eggs produce large birds. But here Professor Owen steps in and takes us out of the region of Oology into the sober scene of comparative anatomy. He compared the dimensions of the portions of the right and left metatarsal with the corresponding ones of the Dinornis, and at the same time the fragment of the fibula (casts of these are now before you), and he justly admits that it is hazardous to judge of the entire length of the metatarse from the breadth of the distal end. Strickland observes, in his work upon the Dodo, " N o argument as to the general affinities of a doubtful ornithic genus can be drawn from the relative proportions of the tarso-metatarsal, the posterior metatarsal, and the proximal phalanx; these proportions vary in each genus according as its habits are more or less cursorial, ambulatory, or insessorial." I have not gone over Professor Owen's measurements; they are, no doubt, correct; and he says the fibula of JEpyornis is smaller than that of Dinornis, indicating a smaller leg-bone than the latter. This is so. But more ample experience of these eggs leads m e to suppose * that there were not only two species of AEpyornithidee, but several |
