The distal portion of the humerus of _Telmatornis_ is similar to that in _Presbyornis_ but differs in having (1) the dorsal condyle decidedly more elongate; (2) olecranal fossa much shallower; (3) ventral epicondyle in ventral view less distinctly demarcated but (4) more protrudent in lateral or medial view. The proximal end of humerus (YPM 850) that is the holotype of _Graculavus pumilis_ was considered by Shufeldt (1915:19) definitely to be from a limicoline charadriiform. It is from a bird exactly the size of _Telmatornis priscus_ and its coloration and preservation would not be incompatible with its being the opposite end of the same bone as the holotype of _T. affinis_ (Figure 5_b,c,f,g_). The following differences between the holotypical humeri of _G. velox_ and _“G.” pumilis_ establish that these belong to different genera: (1) in _velox_ the area dorsal to the ventral tubercle and distal to the head is much more excavated, undercutting the head; (2) the dorsal tubercle is more pronounced; (3) there is a distinct excavation distomedial to the ventral tubercle, lacking in _pumilis_; (4) the ventral tubercle in ventral view is much more produced in _velox_ than in _pumilis_. The holotype of _G. pumilis_ is very similar to the humerus in the Burhinidae but differs from that family and agrees with _Graculavus_ in characters 8, 9, and 10 (p. 6). It differs further from the Burhinidae in having the area for the attachment of M. scapulohumeralis caudalis extending farther distally in ventral view. It differs from _Presbyornis_ mainly in lacking the excavation to and undercutting the head. Because pumilis is not congeneric with _Graculavus velox_ and because of its size and similarities with the Burhinidae and _Presbyornis_, we have no hesitation about considering Graculavus pumilis Marsh, 1872, to be a junior subjective synonym of _Telmatornis priscus_ Marsh, 1870. The proximal end of an ulna, NJSM 11900 (Figure 5_j_), is from a bird the size of _Burhinus vermiculatus_ and not too dissimilar to it except that the shaft is more robust in the fossil. The specimen is too imperfect to merit detailed study and is referred to Telmatornis priscus only on size and probability. The very fragmentary distal end of carpometacarpus associated with the type of _G. pumilis_ (Figure 5_i_) is slightly larger and more robust than in _Burhinus vermiculatus_, but not so much as to be incompatible with _T. priscus_. Compared to _Burhinus_ (1) the symphysial area is deeper and (2) the articular surface for the major digit is proportionately larger, the specimen being somewhat more similar to the carpometacarpus in _Presbyornis_.