PDF (Lo-Res) - Smithsonian Institution Libraries

8
iver (1897) but afterward were translated into English by Rothschild
(1907:114) as "Bitterns or Great Egrets." The word gosier,
in old French gauzier, does not mean "egret" but "throat,"
and the words grand gosier designated both pelicans and the
"argalas" of India {Leptoptilus dubius (Gmelin)).
Family THRESKIORNITHIDAE
Genus Threskiornis Gray
Apterornis Selys-Longchamps, 1848:293 [not Apteromis Owen, 1848:1, a senior
homonym; type by subsequent designation of Gray, 1855:154, Apterornis
solitarius Selys-Longchamps, 1848]. [New synonymy]
Ornithaptera Bonaparte, 1854:139 [new name for Apterornis Selys-Longchamps,
1848, not Apterornis Owen, 1848:1]. [New synonymy]
Borbonibis Mourer-Chauvire and Moutou, 1987:419 [type by original designation,
Borbonibis latipes Mourer-Chauvire and Moutou, 1987]. [New synonymy]
Threskiornis solitarius (Selys-Longchamps, 1848),
new combination
Reunion Ibis
FIGURES 4k-s, la-e
Apterornis solitarius Selys-Longchamps, 1848:293 [based on birds described
by Tatton in S. Castleton, 1613 (1625), D.B. (^Dubois), 1671-1672 (1674),
and Abbe Carre, 1667 (1699), from Bourbon (= Reunion Island)].
Didus apterornis Schlegel, 1854:244 [based on birds described by Tatton in S.
Castelton, 1613 (1625) and in Abbe Carre, 1667 (1699), from Bourbon
(=Reunion Island)].
Ornithaptera borbonica Bonaparte, 1854:2 [based on birds described by Tatton
in S. Castleton, 1613 (1625) and in Abbe Carre, 1667 (1699), from Bourbon
(= Reunion Island)].
Victoriornis imperialis Hachisuka, 193 7a: 71 [based in part on descriptions of
the Reunion Ibis by Tatton in S. Castleton, 1613 (1625) and in W.Y. Bontekoe,
1646, but mainly on illustrations by Holsteyn and Withoos that likely
pertain to the dodo {Raphus) of Mauritius, so that the disposition of the name
must depend on future lectotypification].
Borbonibis latipes Mourer-Chauvire and Moutou, 1987:419 [holotype, right
juvenile tarsometatarsus, FSL 330512 (UCB), Grotte de l'Autel, Saint-Gilles,
commune of Saint-Paul, Reunion Island].
MATERIAL.—Grotte des Premiers Francais: r. d. j. tarsometatarsus,
1993-37.
Grotte de l'Autel: r. coracoid, 330510; 1. p. coracoid,
330527; r. carpometacarpus 330511; r. d. j. tibiotarsus, 330513;
r. j. tarsometatarsus, 330512; r. d. j. tarsometatarsus, 330514;
metatarsal I, 330536; j. pedal phalanx 1 of digit I, 330530; j.
pedal phalanx 1 of digit II, 330529; j. pedal phalanx 1 of digit
III, 330532; j. pedal phalanx 2 of digit III, 330533; j. pedal phalanx
1 of digit IV, 330535.
Marais de l'Ermitage: Anterior part of mandible, 1872; 1.
quadrate, 1913; sacrum, 1918; fragment of pelvis, r. side, 1912;
1. scapula, 1909; 1. p. humerus, 1908; r. p. ulna, 1806; ulna, s.,
1910; p. radius, 1871; 3 d. radii, 1808, 1875, 1911; r. carpometacarpus,
1809; 3 r. d. tibiotarsi, 1804, 1805, 1807; 1. tibiotarsus,
1867; 1. d. tibiotarsus, 1868; r. and 1. tarsometatarsi,
same individual, 1801, 1803; r. j. tarsometatarsus, 1870; 1. tar­
SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY
sometatarsus, 1802; 1. j. tarsometatarsus, 1869; 2 pedal phalanges
1 of digit II, 1873, 1874.
REMARKS.—It had generally been thought that a representative
of the family Raphidae (Columbiformes), equivalent to the
Mauritius Dodo {Raphus cucullatus (Linnaeus)) or to the Rodrigues
Solitaire {Pezophaps solitaria (Gmelin)), used to live on
Reunion. For the following reasons, however, we believe that
the "solitaire" described by the early explorers was an ibis and
not a dodo (Mourer-Chauvire et al., 1995a, 1995b). First, although
the early accounts speak of a solitaire, we did not find
any remains of dodo-like birds. On the other hand, we found
relatively abundant remains of an ibis, which had never been
mentioned in the historical reports. This begged the question,
was the solitaire of Reunion an ibis? Second, the morphological
and behavioral characteristics given by eyewitnesses agree
better with an ibis than with a dodo. Dubois said that the solitaire
had a beak like a woodcock {Scolopax) but larger, and
Feuilley mentioned that "their food is but worms and filth taken
on or in the soil" (Cheke, 1987:39).
The first taxonomic authors to refer to the solitaire of
Reunion (Strickland and Melville, 1848; Selys-Longchamps,
1848; Bonaparte, 1854; Schlegel, 1854) regarded it as different
from the Mauritius Dodo. Schlegel, although placing it in the
same genus, presented a restoration that was quite different
from the dodo, showing a bird with a longish beak, probably
reflecting Dubois' description of it being like a woodcock.
Nevertheless, from the time when paintings of a white dodo
were considered to depict the Reunion solitaire (Newton,
1869), this bird was regarded as a species of Raphidae. Storer
(1970) was the only person to suggest that it could have belonged
to a different family. In addition, as pointed out by
Cheke (1987:39), "none of the existing paintings ascribed to
Reunion birds has supporting documentation."
DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISONS.—We previously indicated
that the Reunion Ibis, then described under the new name of
Borbonibis latipes, was more closely related to the genus
Geronticus (Mourer-Chauvire and Moutou, 1987). Now, with
more fossil remains and more comparative material, we conclude
that this was an error.
The remains of the Reunion Ibis have been compared with
specimens of the different extant genera of Threskiornithidae
in the USNM collection, and they agree perfectly with the genus
Threskiornis. They are most similar to the Sacred Ibis, T.
aethiopicus (Latham), and to the Straw-necked Ibis, T. spinicollis
(Jameson), from Australia, which is sometimes ascribed
to a separate genus, Carphibis. The ratio-diagram of total bone
length (Figure 3) shows that the curve obtained for T. solitarius
is practically identical to that of T. aethiopicus and is parallel to
that of T. spinicollis.
Various skeletal dimensions of Threskiornis are given in Table
4. The differences between T. solitarius, on the one hand,
and T. aethiopicus and T spinicollis on the other, are mainly in
robustness. The total length of the bones as yet known of T.
solitarius is almost the same as in a large male of T. aethiopicus
and is slightly greater than in T. spinicollis, although the