Art. XLII.—On the Assumed Hybridity between the Common Fowl and the Woodhen (Ocydromus).

Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 22, 1889, Page 342

Art. XLII.—On the Assumed Hybridity between the Common Fowl and the Woodhen (Ocydromus). By James Murie, M. D, LL.D., F.L.S. Communicated by Sir Walter Buller, K.C.M.G., F.R.S. [Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, 19th February, 1890.] Plates XXI.–XXIV. Since the publication of Darwin's classical works, “The Origin of Species,” and “Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication,” the subject of hybridity, or hybridism, has been rendered highly attractive, and instructive to a remarkable degree. One sequel of his writings has been to foster the spirit of observation and inquiry regarding individual bodily variations or peculiarities of habit, however slight or merely of passing occurrence they might seem to be at first sight. The special interest attached to the supposed hybrid about to be reported on is one of negation rather than support. But a register of the data nevertheless shows certain side-lights, which may be of use hereafter when similar inquiries as to mixed parentage are undertaken. Before proceeding to inquire into the evidence to be derived from the anatomy of the attributed cross-bred fowl more immediately the subject of this paper, I shall shadow forth in a cursory manner what hitherto has been asserted in support of the interbreeding of the weka and the fowl. In the first edition of “The Birds of New Zealand,” 1872, p. 165, the author, in referring to the North Island woodhen (Ocydromus earli), drew attention to a reputed hybrid with the fowl seen

by him at Waikanae, and to another in the possession of Dr. Hewson, at Otaki; also that Dr. Hildebrand, of Wairarapa, conceived he had several in a clutch from one hen. This hybridism was disputed by Capt. F. W. Hutton, of New Zealand (“Ibis,” 1874, p. 39), and certain English ornithologists. Later on Sir W. Buller (“Trans. N.Z. Inst.,” ix., p. 341, 1876) supplemented his remarks by the further observations of Capt. Mair, of Tauranga, on his own account, and who likewise adduced native testimony of the not-infrequent occurrence of the interbreeding of the weka and fowl; and, lastly, by a note from Mr. T. E. Young, of the Native Department, supporting the hybrid theory. A belief in the said hybridism having thus been extensively promulgated by independent witnesses, it is more difficult to eradicate than to prevent the spread of the current notion, except by a comprehensive specification of structural data substantiating a contrary opinion. This is the wherefore of the length of the present communication. Unfortunately for those persuaded of the intermixture of race, direct proof of the illegitimate union of Gallus and Ocydromus is wanting. Their evidence is mainly derived from predominating resemblances in the offspring to the rail—such as colour, wing-feather banding or pencilling, hairy feathering, feeble development of wings and tail, form of head, body, and legs, the peculiar furtive, prying, rail-like gait and nocturnal habits, with the fact of the weka's freely associating with the fowls in the Maori clearings. With respect to the special bird anatomized, it was obtained by Dr. Lewis, the Medical Superintendent, Rotorua, and sent to England as a typical example of the hybridity in question. Its history and habits agreed as above indicated. I may here incidentally refer to my artist Mr. Berjeau's drawing of the bird, given in Plate XXI., fig. 1, which it is to be remembered is not taken from actual life, but may be looked on as portraying in a general way the descriptions given by the several authorities above specified who have seen the pseudo-hybrids running about the native villages. The plumose feathering is from the dried skin after spirit preservation, the head likewise. The comb is represented lapping towards the observer; whether it was carried more erect during life I cannot say. Captain Mair (l.c.) avers the females seen by him were combless. I received from Sir Walter Buller a square tin canister, soldered down and air-tight, containing the bird preserved in strong spirit. I found the specimen in good condition for anatomical examination, though not perfect in plumage. The plumes of the primary and secondary wing-feathers and those of the tail-feathers (retrices) had been broken away, but

leaving sufficient of the quills intact to enable their numbers to be counted. The bird was an adult of stout build, muscular, though in very lean condition. It outwardly resembled an ordinary cock of good size, inasmuch as there was a fair development of comb and wattles; nevertheless, partly from its unusual plumage, and otherwise, there was something, not easily defined, suggestive of its being a fowl of impure breed. As taken out of the preservative fluid, before drying, the ear-coverts were of a dark brownish-black, browny-black, or sooty-brown, as, indeed, were such feathers of the body and of the tail as were left; the tint varying in different degrees of intensity. When dried, however, the feathers assumed quite a bluish-grey hue, and were remarkably fluffy. The bill was proportionally strong, with terminally deflected mandible, as in the common fowl. The legs likewise were proportionally strong, and scaled; a stout, short spur existing on both limbs, on the usual situation. The tarsometatarsal scutes and scales agreed rather with the form and disposition extant in Gallus than in Ocydromus or Rallus: this inasmuch as there was a double row of large, somewhat hexagonal-shaped scales dovetailing in front, and gradually wending outwards distally, so that at the phalangeal end the inner row became medial, and thence singly clothed the long middle anterior toe. Traces only of a feathered leg were apparent in this specimen examined by me. The rails are distinguished by a more regular delicate scutellation, only a single uniform row of sharply-bordered transverse scales clothing the tarso-metatarse, and the toes are covered with a similar diminutive pattern. There is no leg-spur, and the feet altogether, though long and relatively large for the bird, are much more slender than in the quasi-hybrid under examination. Some rough measurements of head and limbs:— Inches. Occiput to tip of the bill 3.0 Mouth-angle to tip of the bill 1.4 Fore angle of nostril to tip of the bill 0.8 Length, tarsus to tip of mid-toe, including nail 8.3 " of anterior middle toe, including nail 3.3 " " outer toe, including nail 2.1 " " inner toe, including nail 1.8 " of hind toe (hallux), including nail 1.3 The spur is 0.4in. long, and the same breadth at the base. The relative proportional length of the bill to the head is as 1 to 3 in this bird and the fowl; in Ocydromus it is as 1 to 1, or even longer. The feathering throughout (notwithstanding its soft, fluffy peculiarity) had a gallinaceous facies, distinctly manifested by

the presence of sparse wiry neck- and loin-hackles, by sixteen strong quilled tail-feathers, and twenty-six wing-feathers, the eleventh being relatively slender. The feather-tracts corresponded to those of Gallus, as given by Nitzsch,* “Pterylography,” Engl. Transl. Ray Soc., p. 115. the contour-feathering possessing very downy barbules. Twelve weak short tail-feathers and twenty-two wing-feathers are the usual complement in the Rallidæ and their contour-feathers possess more filiform and less downy barbules. With regard to the viscera, the presence of a large and capacious crop is of significance, inasmuch as this is a true galline feature; such œsophagal inflation being characteristically absent in the Rallidæ. A proventriculus, a stout muscular gizzard, a pair of long capacious coæca, and the general structure of the intestinal tract, bore resemblances to those extant in the genus Gallus, the viscera of a fresh fowl having been compared with them side by side. But, as these characters are shared by the rails, it is difficult to define precise comparative differences where the sizes of the birds are unequal—unless it may be that in the supposed hybrid a wider terminal sacculation of the cœca be instanced. The contents of the crop and gizzard consisted chiefly of a considerable-sized mass of matted vegetable matter, along with grumous material of a semi-digested nature, and particles of gravel. A closer examination showed that the bulk of the vegetable substance was made up of fibres of grasses, some with minutely-serrated margin. Intermingled among the contorted and woven-together grass-fibre were remnants of small leaves, several distinctly hirsute. There was no grain whatever, and of seeds I only recognised one or two—black, smooth, shiny ones, less than a split-pea in size. Some other irregularly-shaped soft particles arrested my attention, and proved to be partly-digested cartilage or gristly stuff. Of other animal material I detected an insect, in the presence of a tiny portion of the elytra of a lustrous beetle. There was a scarcity of sand among the gravel. The latter was made up of irregular fragments of rock, well rubbed—viz., of pure quartz, quartzite rock, fine-grained grey granite, and agglutinated sand-grains or scoriæ, each more or less easily recognisable. The nature of the food thus showed that the bird was a ravenous feeder, and not an inmate of a farm-yard. Seeds, pulpy fruits, or other garbage not being to hand, it doubtless gladly availed itself of coarser, less nutritious fare. Thus, probably, may the lean condition of the body, already mentioned, be accounted for. Of the mouth-parts, the contour and sculpture of the

palatal surface, and similarly the tongue, faucial area, laryngeal cleft, and larynx generally, were for practical purposes identical with that of the hen compared. On the contrary, in Ocydromus, as in other rails, the slender, lengthened, and laterally-compressed probing tongue and naso-maxillary region gives correspondingly a different facies to these parts, therefore quite unlike the short, flat, triangular tongue-parts of the fowl tribe. The hyoid bones also agreed with those of the fowl. Not only was this the case in the difference of their relative strength to those of rails, but in the short, broad tongue-cartilage, the stout and broad glossohyal, with its pronouncedly-forked ceratohyals, and in the proportionally strong, high-ridged anterior basi-branchial bar. In Ocydromus the deficiency of bony hyals, rudimentary ceratohyals, and narrow, very elongated cartilage of the tongue, are quite distinctive from those of the preceding. As to the presence of double carotid arteries in the specimen, these obtaining both in the rails and fowls,* Garrod, “On the Carotid Arteries of Birds,” P.Z.S., 1873, pp. 468, 469. no inference can be drawn therefrom. My dissection of the muscles confirmed gallinaceous structure from the myological standpoint; but this rather in the general configuration of parts than in variations of individual muscles from those of the Rallidæ. As a matter of fact, there are no salient distinctions therein between the two groups. This has been partly shown by the late Professor Garrod in his two papers,† P.Z.S., 1873, p. 626; and P.Z.S., 1874, p. 112. These contributions are based, but with great extensions, on Sundeval's original observations, 1843, afterwards worked into his article, “Om muskelbyggnaden i foglarnas extremiter,” Nat.-forsk. Sällsk. forhandl., 1851. Garrod adopts Sundeval's nomenclature, which I here follow for convenience' sake. “On certain Muscles of the Thigh of Birds, and on their Value in Classification.” I may note that in the reputed hybrid in question an ambiens was present in both limbs, that on the left side (agreeing with Garrod's description of that muscle, P.Z.S., 1873, p. 629) being inserted in, or, rather, fusing with, the topmost fibres of the flexor digitorum, whereas on the opposite right limb the tendon was lost on the fibrous tissue abreast of the knee-cap, and it did not cross to the outside of the joint. On the right side a distinct femoro-caudal was not appreciable. On the left side it was represented by a very weak fleshy ribbon, which, as it ran towards the femur, blended in an undefined pencil of fibres with the insertion of the accessory femoro-caudal. The latter muscle, though thin, was a fairly-well-developed sheet on both sides. The pectorales

muscles, conforming to the deep-keeled sternum, were ample, the second pectoral reaching quite to the end of the sternum, and a third pectoralis was present. Professor Garrod has recorded (l.c.) the occasional absence of a femoro-caudal muscle in certain galline birds, so that its being wanting in our bird hardly merits more than passing remark. The skeleton emphasized the preponderance of fowl-attributes. The skull, in its breadth to depth, naso-maxillary shortening, general robustness of fronto-cranial section, and contour as a whole, could not be mistaken for that of any of the rail tribe. The more salient points, agreeing generally with that of a Dorking fowl's cranium, used for comparison, are as follows: Broad wedge-shaped naso-maxillary region, with deflected tip; high ovoid narial vacuity; broad quadriform frontals over-arching orbits; a bony interorbital plate; spoon-shaped upper limb of lachrymal; palatal surface continuing wide forwards; broad maxillo-palatines; vertical post-palatine plates; stout basi-pterygoid; very broad basi-occipital, and very large carotid foramina. As distinctive of breed, and in this respect resembling that of the Cochin fowl, I may add a high arched occipital foramen, and a marked depression at the junction of the frontals and naso-maxillæ. Ocydromus cranially is distinguished by—Narrow lengthened naso-maxillary region; like-shaped narial vacuity; frontals also long and narrow, only slightly overarching the orbits; a large open interorbital space; attenuate upper limb of lachrymal; palatal surface remarkably narrowed forwards; narrow, compressed, oat-shaped maxillo-palatines; horizontal furrowed post-palatine plates; slender, elongate basi-pterygoid; narrow, prominent basi-occipital, and small carotid foramina. The broad, arched mandible contrasts with the much longer, narrower, straighter, and deeper lower mandible of Ocydromus. The sternum of the assumed hybrid is quite double the size of that of Ocydromus, and it comports with the gallinaceous type. The body is very narrow and spatular, the keel immensely deep anteriorly, before which is a broad scooped area, and terminal rostrum; there are also present a pair of very great lateral notches, and exterior broad bony processes on each side. The pectoral arch denotes fowl, the furcular appendage being ample, and shaped somewhat as in the Dorking breed. The shallow-keeled, relatively broader-bodied, narrow, single-notched, and extremely weak sternum of Ocydromus could not be confounded with the preceding; still less the

slender, simple, widely-arched furcula. Whilst, as Professor Huxley* “Classification of Birds,” P.Z.S., 1867, p. 425; and “Anatomy of Vertebrated Animals,” 1871, p. 289. An observation first made by Professor Newton (see “Birds of New Zealand,” 2nd ed., vol. ii., p. 108, footnote). has shown, it is a special characteristic of this ralline genus for the coracoid and scapula to meet at an obtuse angle. Almost unfitted for sustained flight, the wing-bones of Ocydromus are feeble in the extreme as compared with those of the bird in question. The two could not for a moment be mistaken for one another in size, relative stoutness, configuration, bony prominences, and muscular impressions. The large pelvis in all its aspects agrees with that of the fowl race. Very broad fore-iliac plates are continued backwards towards the acetabulum. The post-iliac or rump region is still wider, full, flattish, or smoothly convex, the interior being uniformly capacious. The remarkably deep ischia project beyond the outer border of the post-ilia. The pubic rods reach ½in. behind the V-outlined ischia. The ischiatic foramina are large and antero-posteriorly oval. There is a prominent cotyloid or prepubic process. The Ocydromine pelvis, on the contrary, is distinguished by its uncommon narrowness and restricted capacity, being bottle-shaped, or with unusually deflexed and laterally-compressed fore and mid-ilia. The rump-region is equally narrow, prominently and obliquely ridged atop, and square-set behind: this by reason of an overeaving of post-ilia over the small, straight-set, impressed, vertical, and terminally-truncate ischia, which the straight pubic bars barely pass. Prepubic processes minute; sciatic foramina small and roundish. The specialized hind limbs of Ocydromus, so out of proportion to its diminutive wing, would suggest some trace of such difference in the bird supposed crossed from it. Such, indeed, was not the case. The moot bird had, it is true, big leg-bones, but these were quite in keeping with the dimensions of its wing-elements, and not exaggerated relatively to the latter, as is the ralline peculiarity. The leg- and toe-bones strictly agreed with those of the fowl in every particular, bony processes and ridges being very pronounced, and general stoutness considerable, as opposed to Ocydromus. In the femur the trochanteric eminence, superficially and otherwise, was great, the external condyle lower than the internal. The tibial cnemial process was towards the median line and lengthened, the inner distal tibial knuckle the largest; the fibula reached to the end of the shaft of the tibia. The bone of the upper post-tarsal projection was short and perforated. Hind-toe bones as long as the first phalanx of the mid-toe;

inner toe slightly longer than outer toe; mid-toe about one-third longer than either; claw-bones relatively wide. Of the leg-bones in Ocydromus the following obtains: The trochanter is depressed; the external condyle barely descends beyond the internal one; the cnemial process towards the inside of the bone is short, but relatively and absolutely more prominent than in the larger pseudo-hybrid skeleton; the outer tibial knuckle is the largest one; fibula two-thirds the length of shaft of tibia; the upper post-tarsal projection only extends down one-fourth the length of the tarso-metatarse, is furrowed, but has no foramen. Hind-toe bones shorter than the first phalanx of mid-toe; outer and inner toe subequal in length; mid-toe one-fourth longer than either adjoining; claw-bones laterally compressed. With regard to the vertebral column, costæ, and cavity of the chest in this quasi-hybrid, these in the main coincided with what Darwin records of the fowl in the volume already quoted. Thus, we reckon as present 14 cervical, *Darwin, in a footnote, loc. cit., p. 266, accuses himself of not correctly assigning the vertebral group-numbers, referring to Prof. W. K. Parker's opinion thereon. I prefer to follow his own notation and statements, as more readily allowing comparisons, while not involving any theoretical question as to what constitutes vertebral regions in birds—a subject, moreover, by no means yet settled among osteologists. 7 dorsal with ribs, 15 lumbo-sacral, more or less ankylosed, and, lastly, 6 or 7 caudal vertebral elements. It is worthy of notice that the 6th cervical presented the bridge of bone said by Darwin to exist in the Cochin fowl. The 14th cervical did not bear ribs. The ribs extant were 7 in number and proportionally strong and broad. In the skeleton of Ocydromus used for comparison the cervicals were 14, dorsals 8 freely-separated vertebræ, 14 more or less coalesced lumbo-sacral, and 11 caudal vertebral bodies, all free and movable on each other. The entire spinal column and its related parts show a delicacy of mould, and this is very notable in the tail-elements, which organ, be it remarked, has in the rail tribe only short soft feathers clothing it. There are ten ribs, seven of which are very long, and all are attenuate bony rods; six have mid-costal processes. The last cervical and first ilio-sacral vertebra have each a pair of short free ribs. The chest cavity is unusually deep and narrow, as contradistinguished from that of the doubtful hybrid or that of the common fowl. From the foregoing data it will readily be conceded that in all the exterior as well as interior organization of the bird under examination scant ground is left for support of its being a hybrid between the fowl and weka rail. Assuming no detailed anatomical investigation had been undertaken, the

impression nevertheless might remain with those who saw the creature alive, and were acquainted with its currently-reported history, that its habits—so opposed to those of the ordinary fowl of the farmyard—could only have been those of a hybrid bird. It behoves, then, to account for these assumed peculiarities of manner; and in the fact that the bird had adopted feral instincts and habits a clue is given to read the case aright. Darwin,* “Animals and Plants under Domestication,” vol. ii., p. 32. after referring to Wallace's† “Jour. Proc. Linn. Soc.” (1858), iii., p. 60. views, says: “Nevertheless I do not doubt that the simple fact of animals and plants becoming federal does cause some tendency to reversion to the primitive state; though this tendency has been much exaggerated by some authors.” He also admits‡ Loc. cit., ii., p. 43. “that with crossed animals a similar tendency to the recovery of lost characters holds good even with instincts.” That a healthy and robust chicken, reared under primitive conditions and in the proximity of a forest or waste lands, should forsake its more domesticated companions, and prefer to lead a free and roving life, accords with the above savant's teachings. It needs no stretch of the imagination, then, to conceive how the reputed semi-nocturnal rail-like habit is associated with no other than a return to that of the wild stock. The occasional visit to the poultry-yard towards nightfall may have been partly in search of food, but, doubtless, also due to sexual manifestations, for a knowledge of the presence of its kindred in the neighbourhood would be an intuition easily acquired. Much of the averred shyness and timidity may be attributed to the bird's forest seclusion and fear of man. Its skulking, stealthy gait (so characteristic of the wekas and alien Rallidæ) when in quest of food denoted that ever-watchful care for its safety inherent and necessary to wild birds continually on the alert for hidden enemies. The diminutive drooping tail, much relied on as a ralline feature, is at best weak evidence of hybridity, nor specially favours reversion to feral habit. It, like the plumose, hairy, or flocculent feathering thought to be so extraordinary by the New Zealand observers, rather represents what is characteristic of certain breeds of fowl; while the grass-eating proclivity (witness Cochin-fowl habit) may not only be referred to breed, but with greater probability forced upon the bird by scarcity of graniferous diet. That this reputed hybrid, but nevertheless undoubted fowl, was of mixed derivative origin is denoted by its external characters superadded to by points in its osteological construction.

If we take Tegetmeier,* “The Poultry Book;” by W. B. Tegetmeier; Lond., 1867. And “Encycl. Brit.,” ed. 9, vol. xix., p. 644, art. “Poultry.” a reliable authority on fowls, or Darwin's† “Animals and Plants under Domestication,” i., p. 226. synopsis of breeds and sub-breeds, in his chapter on fowls, it is easily seen that the great majority of the breeds must be discarded as completely at variance with the bird under consideration. A few breeds only are worthy of notice. Though the Malay has sixteen retrices, and small downward sloping tail, yet in all other characters it widely diverges. The Cochin, in its soft downy plumage, short sixteen-feathered tail, dumpy spurs, medially-furrowed and depressed frontal bone, high-outlined occipital foramen, bony bridge on the sixth cervical vertebra, feathered leg (though superabundant), long middle-toe, and grazing propensity, much better agrees with the condition of things in the supposititious hybrid, more particularly one variety of Cochins presently to be mentioned. The pure Dorking, again, in its wide interorbital region, and partially in the outline of its furcular termination (hypocleidium), harmonizes; but, on the other hand, its additional-toe character and other features do not coincide. Further, the breed of so-called Silk Fowls, in the very characteristic nature of their plumage and other attributes, have much in their favour, but I did not observe in the alleged hybrid that distinguishing peculiarity of the Silk Fowl—namely, the black skin and black periosteum of the bones. Referring to the Silky Cochins, Tegetmeier's words are so explanatory and appropriate to the present case that I quote accordingly:— “The singular variety known as Silky Cochins, or sometimes as Emu Fowls, is simply an accidental variation of plumage which occasionally occurs, and which may be perpetuated by careful breeding. The cause of the coarse fluffy appearance of these remarkable fowls is to be discovered in the fact that the barbs of the feathers, instead of being held together by a series of hooked barbules (so as to constitute a plane surface, as occurs in all ordinary feathers), are perfectly distinct; and this occasions the loose, fibrous, silky appearance from which the fowl obtains its name. Silk Cochins are usually inferior in size to the ordinary varieties.”‡ “The Poultry Book,” by W. B. Tegetmeier, p. 46. In short, one thing with another, it appears to me that this occasional production of aberrant, curt-tailed, hairy-plumaged chickens among the New Zealand poultry points to a strain of Cochin or Silky Fowl blood which now and again crops up. Where the bird has from circumstances run wild there is a tendency to feral habit and pronounced traits of wild breed, those induced by domestication—as size, &c.—diminishing in a corresponding ratio.

In conclusion, I may add that Mr. Beddard, Prosector to the Zoological Society (through Sir W. Buller's courtesy), examined a female supposed hybrid, satisfying himself of its being a true fowl; his (and my old) colleague, Mr. A. D. Bartlett, the Superintendent of the Gardens, from casual inspection of its outward aspect, inclining to regard it as a hen of the Silky Fowl breed. Thus, independently, we three observers have arrived at a nearly similar view respecting a male and female of the supposed hybrid fowl and weka rail; and, from the anatomical evidence instituted, the question, I should say, may be regarded as finally settled. Description of the Plates. Plate XXI. Fig. 1. Sketch of the supposititious hybrid between the domestic fowl and the weka rail (Ocydromus greyi, Buller). The attitude here given and the general aspect of the plumage are ideally drawn according to the description of the bird's carriage, as given by Sir Walter Buller and his correspondents. Fig. 2. Part of its right lower leg and hind-toe, showing the spur and the scaly covering. Natural size. Fig. 3. A back view of the skull, natural size, of the same bird, to illustrate the vertically high-shaped occipital foramen. (Compare Darwin's figure of that of the Cochin cock, “Animals and Plants under Domestication,” vol. i., p. 261.) Fig. 4. A side view of the same skull. Also natural size. Fig. 5. A corresponding side view of the skull of the southern weka rail (Ocydromus australis). Natural size. Plate XXII. Figs. 1 and 2. Upper and lower surface of the skull of the supposed hybrid fowl. Natural size. Figs. 3 and 4. Similar views of the cranium of Ocydromus australis, for comparison with the preceding figures. Also natural size. Fig. 5. Reduced drawing of the exterior of portion of the digestive organs of the suggested hybrid: œ, œsophagus; c, crop; p, proventriculus; g, gizzard; i, intestine. Plate XXIII. Fig. 1. Tail-vertebræ of the supposed hybrid in side view. Natural size. Fig. 2. The same parts in Ocydromus australis. Also natural size. Fig. 3. Outside view of the lower mandible of the assumed hybrid. Natural size. Fig. 4. Similar aspect of the lower mandible of O. australis. Natural size. Fig. 5. Upper view of the lower mandible of the supposed hybrid. Natural size. Fig. 6. Corresponding bone of Ocydromus. Also of natural size. Fig. 7. Upper surface of the tongue-bones and cartilaginous appendages of the quasi-hybrid. Natural size. Fig. 8. Same parts in O. australis. Natural size. Fig. 9. Right tarso-metatarse and foot of supposed hybrid fowl, in front view, showing scutellation, &c. Half natural size. Fig. 10. Corresponding parts in O. australis. Natural size. Fig. 11. Anterior view of the tibial cnemial process and upper end of right tibia of the so-called hybrid. Fig. 12. The corresponding bone in O. australis.

To illustrate Paper by Dr. Murie

To illustrate Paper by Dr. Murie

To illustrate Paper by Dr. Murie

To illustrate Paper by Dr Murie.

Plate XXIV. Figs. 1 and 2. Top and side view of the pelvis of the supposed hybrid fowl. Half natural size. Figs. 3 and 4. Corresponding views of the pelvis of Ocydromus australis. Only reduced two-thirds natural size. Fig. 5. The sternum of the supposed hybrid seen from below. Of half natural size. Fig. 6. Similar view of the sternum of O. australis, but of natural size. Fig. 7. Side view of sternum of the said hybrid. Half natural size. Fig. 8. The same of O. australis, but of natural size. Fig. 9. Right scapula (sc), coracoid (c), and furcula (f), with (h) hypocleidium, of the supposed hybrid fowl. External view, reduced half natural size. Fig. 10. The same bones of Ocydromus. Of natural size.