| Pelvis. | ||
| Length of Ilium | 82 | mm. approx. |
| Least width of acetabular region of Pelvis | 14 | " |
| Width at Antitrochanter | 40 | " |
| Width at anterior angle of Pelvic Escutcheon | 36 | " |
| Width at Posterior angle of Pelvic Escutcheon | 40 | " |
| Length of Sacrum | 68 | " |
| Tibia. | ||
| Length | 143 | mm. |
| Width at distal extremity | 12 | " |
| Width at middle of shaft | 7 | " |
| Femur. | ||
| Length | 83 | mm. |
| Width at distal extremity | 17 | " |
| Width at middle of shaft | 7 | " |
Habitat: Sirabé in C. Madagascar.
NOTORNIS OWEN.
Differs from Porphyrio by the secondaries being nearly as long as the primaries, and the wing-coverts more or less elongated, sometimes nearly hiding the quills.
Type: Notornis mantelli.
NOTORNIS MANTELLI OWEN.
Notornis mantelli Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. III, p. 377, pl. LVI, figs. 7-11 (1848).
This species was founded on a nearly entire skull, collected by Walter Mantell at Waingongoro, North Island, New Zealand. This skull is more than twice the size of that of Porphyrio melanotus. The basisphenoidal surface, however, is flatter, the anterior angle projects below the base of the presphenoid, and there is a slender ridge continued from each paroccipital to the lateral angles of the platform, the posterior angles being hemispheric tubercles as in Palapteryx.
The occipital region inclines forwards as it rises, while the same is more vertical in Porphyrio. The post-frontal is broader than in Porphyrio. The chief distinction from that of Porphyrio is, however, the almost regular four-sided figure of the skull. The breadth of the anterior part is almost exactly that of the occipital region, and the extent of the sides is not much more than that of the front and back part. The parieto-frontal region of the skull is very unlike that of Porphyrio, being convex and oblong, and Notornis also lacks cerebral or hemispheric convexities. Owen gives a large number of other differences, but I refer my readers to the original article as above, pp. 366-371. I, however, must state here, as is already mentioned by Mr. Hamilton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. XXIV, p. 176, 1892, that the Dinornis skull, with which Professor Owen compared Notornis, referred by him to D. casuarinus is really that of Aptornis defossor (vide Trans. Zool. Soc. III, pl. 52, figs. 1-7), and, therefore, it is quite natural that Professor Owen found a great likeness to Dinornis in Notornis, as the skull he compared it with was really that of the Ralline Aptornis, and not the Struthious Dinornis at all.