03.04.2013 Views

PDF (Lo-Res) - Smithsonian Institution Libraries

PDF (Lo-Res) - Smithsonian Institution Libraries

PDF (Lo-Res) - Smithsonian Institution Libraries

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

24 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO PALEOBIOLOGY<br />

TABLE 9.—Dimensions (mm) of the bones of the Reunion Rail, Dryolimnas<br />

augusti, new species, compared with recent Dryolimnas cuvieri cuvieri from<br />

Madagascar (BMNH 1897.5.10.47), and D. cuvieri aldabranus from Aldabra<br />

(BMNH s/1989.38.5, BMNH s/1993.6.2). («=number of specimens.)<br />

Measurement<br />

Coracoid<br />

midshaft width<br />

midshaft depth<br />

Humerus<br />

total length<br />

proximal width<br />

head width<br />

midshaft width<br />

midshaft depth<br />

Ulna<br />

total length<br />

proximal width<br />

proximal depth<br />

midshaft width<br />

midshaft depth<br />

Femur<br />

total length<br />

distal width<br />

distal depth<br />

midshaft width<br />

midshaft depth<br />

Tibiotarsus<br />

proximal width<br />

proximal depth<br />

distal width<br />

distal depth<br />

Tarsometatarsus<br />

total length<br />

proximal width<br />

proximal depth<br />

distal width<br />

distal depth<br />

midshaft width<br />

midshaft depth<br />

Dryolimnas<br />

augusti, n. sp. (ri)<br />

3.2(1)<br />

2.3(1)<br />

-48(1)<br />

10.0(1)<br />

3.0(1)<br />

3.3 (2)<br />

3.3 (2)<br />

-40(1)<br />

4.8(1)<br />

5.4(1)<br />

2.7(1)<br />

3.0(1)<br />

-61(1)<br />

10.1-11.3(3)<br />

9.0-9.1(2)<br />

4.5^.9 (4)<br />

4.4-5.0 (4)<br />

9.7(1)<br />

12.1(1)<br />

-7.8(1)<br />

-8.0(1)<br />

53.0-53.1 (2)<br />

8.7-8.8 (2)<br />

9.2 (2)<br />

9.5(1)<br />

7.2(1)<br />

4.3-4.4 (2)<br />

3.8-3.9 (2)<br />

Dryolimnas cuvieri<br />

cuvieri (n=\)<br />

3.1<br />

1.9<br />

47.9<br />

9.7<br />

2.8<br />

3.1<br />

2.9<br />

41.2<br />

4.7<br />

5.1<br />

2.3<br />

2.6<br />

50.5<br />

8.3<br />

7.3<br />

3.6<br />

3.6<br />

7.4<br />

10.1<br />

6.7<br />

7.0<br />

47.6<br />

7.2<br />

7.1<br />

7.2<br />

5.9<br />

3.0<br />

2.6<br />

aldabranus (M=2)<br />

2.1,2.2<br />

1.5,1.5<br />

37.7,39.0<br />

8.1,8.7<br />

2.2,2.2<br />

2.2,2.3<br />

2.1,2.2<br />

31.0,32.5<br />

3.8,4.0<br />

3.8,4.0<br />

1.6,2.1<br />

2.1,2.3<br />

42.8,44.8<br />

7.1,7.5<br />

6.6,6.6<br />

2.9,3.3<br />

3.1,3.3<br />

6.3, 6.4<br />

8.9, 9.4<br />

5.8,5.9<br />

6.0, 6.5<br />

40.2, 44.2<br />

6.1,6.5<br />

6.3, 6.4<br />

6.6, 6.6<br />

5.3, 5.4<br />

2.7,2.7<br />

2.2,2.3<br />

rower proximal and distal parts. In Aphanapteryx the hypotarsus<br />

projects more posteriorly and the external calcaneal ridge is<br />

situated closer to the external side; in the Reunion Rail this<br />

ridge is situated more medially. The Reunion Rail differs from<br />

Erythromachus by the characteristics of the humems (shaft thin<br />

and incurved), femur (more elongated and incurved), and tarsometatarsus<br />

(trochleae less splayed).<br />

In the ratio distal width x 100: total length, the Reunion Rail<br />

occupies an intermediate position between Dryolimnas cuvieri,<br />

which has less splayed trochleae, and more terrestrial rails,<br />

such as Erythromachus, Aphanapteryx, and Gallirallus, which<br />

have more splayed trochleae. This ratio varies between 14.9<br />

and 16.4 inD. cuvieri, is 17.9 in D. augusti, varies between<br />

19.2 and 21.2 in E. leguati (after the measurements given by<br />

Gunther and Newton, 1879), varies between 20.6 and 20.9 in A.<br />

bonasia (MNHN), and reaches 20.2 and 22.8 in two specimens<br />

of Gallirallus australis (MNHN).<br />

REMARKS.—The Reunion Rail is likely to correspond to a<br />

bird that was mentioned only by Dubois (1674) as Rale des<br />

Bois. It cannot correspond to the Oiseau Bleu, which must have<br />

been larger, being the same size as a solitaire, according to<br />

Dubois, or the size of a large capon, according to Feuilley<br />

(Cheke, 1987). The Reunion Rail was smaller, approximately<br />

the size of a Common Moorhen {Gallinula chloropus (Linnaeus)),<br />

with reduced wings.<br />

A fossil rail from Mauritius was recently identified as Dryolimnas<br />

cuvieri by Cowles (1987).<br />

Genus Fulica Linnaeus<br />

Palaeolimnas Forbes, 1893:544 [type by monotypy, Fulica newtonii Milne-Edwards,<br />

1867].<br />

Paludiphilus Hachisuka, 1953:154 [type by monotypy, Fulica newtonii Milne-<br />

Edwards, 1867].<br />

Fulica newtonii Milne-Edwards, 1867<br />

Newton's Coot<br />

FIGURE \li-m<br />

Fulica newtonii Milne-Edwards, 1867:203, pl. 10.<br />

Fulica newtoni.—Anonymous [=A. Newton], 1868:482.<br />

Palaeolimnas newtoni.—Forbes, 1893.<br />

Paludiphilus newtoni.—Hachisuka, 1953.<br />

MATERIAL.—Grotte des Premiers Francais: Rostrum, anterior<br />

part, 1993-44; sternum, 1993-39; incomplete pelvis, 1993-<br />

38; 2 vertebrae, 1993-46; r. tibiotarsus, 1993-40; r. tibiotarsus,<br />

1993-41; fibula, 1993-43; r. tarsometatarsus, 1993-42; 5 pedal<br />

phalanges, 1993-45.<br />

Grotte de l'Autel: Pedal phalanx 1 of digit III, 330528;<br />

pedal phalanx 2 of digit III, 330531.<br />

Marais de l'Ermitage: Fragments of pelvis, 1819; r. coracoid,<br />

1814; r. p. coracoid, 1922; I. d. ulna, 1815; 1. carpometacarpus,<br />

1921; r. d. tibiotarsus, 1816; 2 tarsometatarsi, r. and 1.,<br />

from same individual?, 1811, 1812; r. tarsometatarsus, 1920; r.<br />

p. tarsometatarsus, 1813; pedal phalanx 1 of digit II, 1817; pedal<br />

phalanx 1 of digit II, 1818; 2 pedal phalanges, 1896, 1923.<br />

REMARKS.—Remains of Fulica newtonii in MNHN from the<br />

Mare aux Songes, Mauritius, were compared with those from<br />

Reunion and were found to be identical, so both populations<br />

must have belonged to a single species. The tarsometatarsi<br />

show a great range of variation (Table 10), which probably relates<br />

to sexual dimorphism, with the males being larger than<br />

the females.<br />

Newton and Gadow (1893:292) wrote: "The sternum of F.<br />

newtoni resembles in several points that of Aphanapteryx,<br />

Erythromachus, and Ocydromus, and differs from Tribonyx,<br />

Fulica proper, and Porphyrio, first in the configuration of the<br />

whole anterior margin of the sternum, especially in the double<br />

or basally divided spina externa, which is moreover broad and<br />

flat, while in the other genera this spine is single and furnished<br />

with a ventral longitudinal sharp ridge; secondly, by the receding<br />

and broad anterior margin of the keel, which, however, is<br />

well developed, although less than in Tribonyx and Fulica atra,<br />

but the tendency towards a reduction of the keel is apparent."<br />

The sternum of Fulica newtonii from Reunion (Figure 13/) is

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!