OCR Text |
Show 1903.] OSTRICH FROM THE ISLAND OF SAMOS. 209 features lose their systematic value. But I have shown that the latter had really already lost their importance because of their individual variation. The species Struthio karatheocloris Maj. is therefore to be kept separate. What are the relations between S. karatheocloris and S. asiaticus from the Siwalik Hills ? I can now give further information on S. asiaticus. A comparison of the fossils with the figures 011 the unpublished plate R of Falconer's ‘ Fauna Antiqua Sivalensis/ and those accompanying Davies' 1 paper and Lydekker's2 description, did not reveal any differences, except that the drawings in Falconer's Atlas are much better than the others. Davies found that the principal difference between S. asiaticus and S. camelus lies in the greater stoutness of the cervical vertebra? in the former; and Lydekker kept the two species separate only 011 account of this feature. The answer to the question, whether the greater stoutness of the sacral vertebrae 011 one side and that of the cervical vertebrae 011 the other indicates a special relationship, cannot be given now. There is 110 evidence for such relations; and I, for my part, consider this character in the fossil forms (compared with the modern Ostriches) only as more primitive. There may be reason to unite the two forms in one species; but considering their different geological ages3, I think it will be better not to do so. But there can be no doubt that Struthio asiaticus is in direct relation with S. karatheocloris, i. e. that the former is a descendant of the latter, as Dr. Major4 supposes the whole Siwalik fauna to be a later and transformed generation of the upper Miocene fauna of Pikermi and Samos. It is noteworthy therefore that S. karatheocloris and S. asiaticus give us no evidence for a specialisation of the Struthionidae in Southern Eurasia5, and a consequent emigration into Southern Europe, Syria, and Africa, but support rather the view that the order of migration took place in the opposite direction. However, the genesis of the Struthionidae cannot, as Burckhardt1 is inclined to suppose, be associated with the Mullerornithidae; for the geological age of the former is opposed to such an h}Tpothesis. By the discovery of a Struthio in the island of Samos, the egg on which the species of Struthio chersonensis Brandt' has been based is of some interest. Though the circumstances surrounding its discovery may be somewhat obscure, yet the size and proportions show that it cannot be the egg of a modern Ostrich ; that it really 1 Davies, Geol. Mag. 1880. 2 Lydekker, in Palrcontologia Indica, 1884-86. 3 Lydekker, Fossil Vertebrata of India: Records Geol. Survey, India, vol. xx. 1887. 4 Op. cit. Comptes rendus des Stances de l'Acad. d. Sci., Oct. 1888. (An account of the fauna of Samos.) Atti della Societa Toscana di Scienze Naturali, Proc.-verbali, vol. v. 3 July, 1887, p. 272. (Letter addressed to Prof. Meneghini, in which Dr. Major shows the difference between the mammalian remains of Samos and tlio of Kos.) 5 Bui'ckhardt, " Uber Aepyornis," Pal. Abb., Jena, 1893, p. 21. 6 Burckhardt, " Das Problem des antarktischen Schopfungscentrums," Ac., Zool. Jahrbiicher, 1902, p. 26. Bull. Ac. Imp. Sc. St. Petersbourg, vol. xviii. 1873. 14* |