EP BBA Sere EO oe OG Pe a6 Wiss te pate ey it en sintee Beeman teed e - oF Spoleto aero ae 4 " Soh at ; jean ages te! a a a ie ee fead > i : Pa rahait pennies bepacy-o rats yet ATR RCA AR PRD let” : UTE, VOL. OL r | TRANS. N.Z.INSTI Buller TLE, MUS. NOVA, ZELAWN: hs ‘ # ry A a ro) re ¥ A iA Ei PY i) & S % 8 KI ® ny Auckland Museure. MUS x SR 5 / i om pohaln i 9 v the diminution of food, caused by the overwhelming increase of an unfriendly race, it is impossible to determine. It has, indeed, been alleged by many naturalists, that the brown rat has actually worried to death its less powerful relative ; and, although this is mere conjecture, it is by no means improbable if we consider the character of that audacious animal, which has been known, when hard pressed, to attack even one of the lords of creation, when unusually hungry to gnaw the flesh of his defenceless offspring, and, when famished, to kill and devour its own kind.’* [This rat resembles Jus fuscipes of Waterhouse and Darwin (Zool. of Voyage of H. M.S. “ Beagle,” Vol. i., p. 66), which inhabits the southern part of the Australian continent. This rat is said to be not uncommon on board steamers trading between New Zealand and that country, and maintains its position against the brown Norway rat (JZ. decwmanus); the two species have been known to occupy different parts of the same ship. An ocherous-coloured rat (a drawing of which, from a specimen in the Auckland Museum, has been forwarded by Captain Hutton), was obtained in New Zealand by Mr. J. Thorpe, in January, 1853, and appears to represent, in this country, a species introduced from Australia (Jf. Gowldi), from the Sydney district. (See Illustration.) The illustration of the rat described by Mr. Buller is taken from a specimen preserved in spirits. The drawing supplied by Captain Hutton is taken from a stuffed specimen, and the following descriptive notes were sent with it :— * Some discussion having taken place at the meeting of the Society, on the 25th June, ‘‘whether any native be now living who could when the above paper was read, as to really identify the native rat,” (See Proceedings W. P. Society, p. 24,) I beg to add the following extract from a letter which I received from the Rev. T. Chapman, of Maketu, fifteen years ago :—‘‘ Relative to the New Zealand rat: I never possessed but one, and it hung up till it rotted away. I have neither seen nor heard of one for these ten years. The only description I can give you of it is that, as far as I remember, it was a true rat, only that the ears were larger and rounded at the end. As far as I know, their habits are the same as those of the Norway rat. * * * Iwas assured by a chief, of Tauranga, that previous to the introduction of the cat there was a rat, of a species larger than the Nor- way rat, in New Zealand, but that it was always very scarce.” (November 5, 1855.) Dr. Dieffenbach, writing in 1843, states, —‘‘ The indigenous rat has now become so scarce, owing to the extermination carried on against it by the European rat, that I could never obtain one. A few, however, are still found in the interior, viz., at Rotorua, where they have been seen by the Rev. Mr. Chapman, who described them as being much smaller than the Norway rat.” (App. Dieff. N. Z., p. 185.) My friend, Major Nixon, informs me that when travelling in the interior of this province about sixteen years ago, the native who accompanied him killed a ‘‘ Maori rat,” which was feasting on the ripe fruit of the kiekie (freycinetia Banksii). His description of this rat, from memory, accords exactly with the specimen which I have brought under the notice of the Society. 4 *« Length, from snout to root of tail. 4 ; . 5:2 inches. ve OL ata eners : ; : 3 ; SeOSS 3 Of head : : , 3 ‘ : 21238 Front feet 4-toed, hind feet 5-toed ; thumb with a claw. Teeth yellow. Tail 2) 29 scaly and covered with short stiff white hairs to the end. Nose sharp pointed. Ears long (0°6 inch), rather pointed, yellowish brown, covered with minute hairs. Back and sides light reddish brown, inclining more to yellow on the shoulders and head. Snout, throat, cheeks, belly and feet dirty white. Fur below the hair slate blue. “This specimen was presented to the Auckland Museum by Mr. J. Thorpe, in January, 1853.” Two skins of the same species of rat as that described by Mr. Buller have since been received from Mr. Moore, who obtained them on the East Coast of the Wellington Province.—Ep. | Art. II.—A List of the Lizards inhabiting New Zealand, with Descriptions. By Water Buuiier, F.L.S., F.G.8. (With Illustrations.) [Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, October 22, 1870.] As some confusion has hitherto existed in the nomenclature and classification of the New Zealand lizards, I beg to lay before the Society a list of those already known to science, with a short description of each species for the purpose of identification. JI am, however, of opinion that in some instances the differences which have been accepted by Dr. Gray and others as sufficient to mark distinct species, are due either to sex or age, and are not of any definite value as specific characters. There is, moreover, among this section, a great tendency to individual variation, and mere differences of colour, unless well marked and constant, are therefore a somewhat unsafe guide in the deter- mination of species. Further information on this branch of our local zoology is much to be desired. The Kawekaweau, a beautiful striped lizard, sometimes attaining a length of two feet, is still undescribed. It was formerly abundant in the forests north of Auckland, and is still occasionally met with. Mr. F. E. Maning, of Hokianga, recently obtained possession of a pair of live ones, but unfortunately for science, one of them was devoured by a cat and the other made its escape. A black lizard, described by Mr. Thomas Kirk as having been seen by him on the cluster of rocky islets off the west coast of the Great Barrier, known as Grey’s Archipelago, will probably prove to be a new form. Descriptions of three new species, which I have ventured to name Tinulia variegata, Mocoa striata, and Naultinus sulphureus, are included in~ the following paper. eneng yr Ag sony yeuy nop nag FYRRD Pe gitiny BLB Dep eprripnerp LOEW IVOTISUA FUTINIM G *PUOE VLEILLS VOIOW & LOL WPOTTT SNILTORN 1 453.4 NANI) jaa Pee aS UB, rot <0 a8: paseo ie "TT AIM TTT A STINT ORE RE RR Uvaars Wu vs oY 5 Genus Hinutia. lLygosma, part, Dum. et bib. Le Keneux, part, Cocteau. Diagnosis.—Head subquadrangular. Heel surrounded with granules. Characters.—Frontal plate oblong. Rostral erect, triangular. Palate toothless, with a deep triangular notch in front. Body fusiform. Scales smooth, thin; the two central preanal scales larger than the rest. Tail tapering, roundish. Legs moderate. Toes 5-5, slender, compressed. Heel of the hind feet surrounded with granules.—Brit. Mus. Cat. p. 74. 1. Hinulia ornata, Gray. Bright pale brown, varied with black and white spots, sides with an irregular narrow pale streak above; scales with short black streaks, some black on each edge, white in the centre ; ears moderate, rounded, simple edged. A variety of this species in my possession, differs from Gray’s type, in having the sides more variegated with black and white, the marginal streak on the sides distinct but interrupted, and the whole of the under parts irregularly and minutely spotted with brown. There is, moreover, a white spot margined with black between the eye and edge of upper jaw. 2. Hinulia variegata, Buller. Reddish brown, beautifully varied with spots and markings of dark brown and white, disposed in regular series, and forming on the middle of the back and on the sides interrupted bands ; tail dark brown, obscurely marked with paler; beneath greenish silvery, shaded with grey under the tail: form slender ; tail very long and tapering ; ears small, deep and rounded ; toes long and slender. Head ‘6 in. ; body 2:3 ; tail 4:4. In one of my specimens there is a narrow line of yellowish white extending from the nostrils down the sides to the junction of the hind legs, and the dark brown of the sides is margined above with a similar line, although not so distinct. Genus Mocoa. Lygosma, part, Dum. et bib. Diagnosis.—Rostral erect, triangular. Palate toothless. Characters.—Head subquadrangular. Rostral erect, triangular, convex. Nasal lateral, nearly contiguous, supranasal none, frontoparietal separate or united into one. Palate toothless, nicked behind. Ears oblong, slightly denticulated in front, tympanum deep. Lower eyelid with a central trans- parent disk. Chin with several pairs of large shields. Body fusiform. Scales smooth, with three or four black streaks. Limbs 4, strong. Toes 5-5, com- pressed, unequal. Tail round, tapering, unarmed. Central preanal scales rather larger than the others.—Brit. Mus. Cat., p. 80. 3. Mocoa Zelandica,* Gray. Pale brown, bronzed, with two narrow black edged bright streaks on each side, the lower one continued down the front of the legs; sides blackish ; the fronto-nasal nearly contiguous, the fronto-parietal separate, similar to the parietal, nasal nearly contiguous ; ears moderate, nearly circular, simple edged ; pre-anal scales nearly equal ; palpebral disk moderate. Mokomoko of the natives. 4, Mocoa Smithii, Gray. Pale brown, with three indistinct series of black spots and a pale streak on each side; sides black, varied; beneath whitish ; limbs black spotted ; nasal and fronto-nasal nearly contiguous, fronto-parietal and parietal nearly equal ; ears open, simple-edged ; pre-anal plates nearly equal ; disk of the lower eyelid very large. 5. Mocoa grandis, Gray. Black, closely yellow spotted, forming interrupted streaks ; beneath whitish ; soles of the feet black ; ears rather large, roundish, with some granular scales in front ; fronto-parietals distinct ; disk of lower eyelid moderate, sub-central. 6. Mocoa striata, Buller. Dark brown, obscurely marked with black and with two rows of small equidistant spots of white. From each side of the crown a broad stripe of white passes down the back and tail, leaving on the latter only a narrow, inter- mediate stripe of dark brown. These dorsal bands are narrowly margined above with black, and are succeeded below by an equally broad and distinct stripe of dark brown, which, commencing behind each eye, passes down the sides and widens on the tail. Beneath pale brown, spotted with darker, except on the chin which is almost white ; fore feet brown, with an indistinct white stripe down the front; hind legs brown, obscurely spotted with white ; tail slender and tapering ; ears deep and round. Head ‘din. ; body 2:2; tail 3°3. Genus Navttinus. Gray. Characters.—Toes free, base rather dilated, thick, rather compressed, end thinner, rather compressed, arched, clawed. Thumb similar, but its base shorter, clawed. Tail cylindrical, tapering, covered with granular scales. Body with a slight fold along each side beneath. Males? with two or three spines on each side of the base of the tail, and three or more transverse series of preanal pores, forming one and sometimes two patches. —Brit. Mus. Cat., p.169. * Hinulia ornata and Mocoa Zelandica are the two species commonly described as Tiliqua ornata and VT. Zelandica. Specimens of both are deposited in the Colonial Museum. 7. Naultinus pacificus, Gray. Pale brown with irregular dark brown cross-bands and a dark streak on each side ; front lower labial shield very large; the chin granular ; scales uniformly granular, rather larger before and behind the vent. The Common Tree Lizard. Moko-Papa of the natives. 8. Naultinus elegans, Gray. Green, rather paler beneath; back sometimes varied with dark-edged white or yellowish spots ; lower lips white ; toes moderate ; tail with a trans- verse series of compressed scales at each side of the base. Green Lizard of the colonists. Kakariki of the natives. Very beautiful varieties of this lizard are sometimes met with. A specimen, in the collection of the British Museum, has “a streak along the under lip, the ears, two arched stripes on the top of the head, irregular shaped spots on each side of the back and hind legs, an interrupted streak along each side of the body and tail, white, with a narrow black edge.” In some specimens there are only faint indications of these markings, while in others there is merely a lunate spot of pale yellow on each side of the crown. An example which I obtained many years ago, at Kaipara, had a stripe of golden yellow down the centre of the back, and a double series of transverse elliptical spots, on a ground of delicate pea green. A. live specimen which I kept for several months, and which presented only a few obsolete yellow marks on the back, gave birth to three young ones, each differently marked but all having the double series of bright dorsal spots. The purplish tinge noticed by Dr. Gray, in his description of the young, is only discoloration caused by the spirits. In fresh examples the green, although of different shades, is always pure. This lizard, on being molested, emits a peculiar chattering sound, which the natives term “laughing” (kata), and of which they have a widespread superstitious dread. The “laugh” of a green lizard is enough to terrify the bravest warrior, and its occult power for evil is strangely believed in by all the tribes in every part of the country. The reptile itself, whether dead or alive, is an object of universal fear among them. Sir George Grey, in his very interesting Account of an Expedition through the Interior, 1849-50, states :— “‘T have seen twenty or thirty able-bodied men fly in a state of the most abject fright, and even take to the water, when pursued by a child with the dead body of a common green lizard in its hands.” 9. Nauwltinus Gray, Bell. Green, paler beneath, sometimes varied with white spots; toes elongate ; tail with four ovate, convex scales, forming an arched series on each side of the base. 8 In characterizing this species, as distinct,* Mr. Bell remarks that it greatly resembles Naultinus elegans, but adds:—‘‘ Upon a comparison of the two however, I find that they differ in the following particulars. In the present species the head is concave between the eyes and forwards nearly to the snout ; in the other this part is quite plain ; the scales of the head in this species are flat ; in the other they are convex. The colour of this species is uniformly green, whereas NV. elegans has several markings of a yellow colour, each distinctly bordered with black.” In the Cat. Brit. Mus., Dr. Gray records an example of this species, from Mr. Egerley’s collection, as being “green, with three ovate white spots on each side of the back.” 10. Naultinus punctatus, Gray. Dark green, with very small scattered black specks, the size of a granule ; beneath yellow-green ; pre-anal pores in a triangular patch, with two series of pores under each thigh. ll. Naultinus sulphureus, Buller. Uniform colour bright sulphur yellow, darker on the upper parts ; abdomen bounded on each side by obsolete spots of paler yellow, dotted with black on the margins. ‘There is a similar obsolete mark, 3 lines in extent, on each side of the crown. Soles of the feet pale brown. The granular scales are larger and more smoothly set than in WV. punctatus ; abdominal and pre-anal scales also larger. Interior of mouth dark blue. Total length 64inches. From extremity of lower jaw to the vent 2-9 in. ; thence to extremity of tail 3°6. Hab.—Rotorua, North Island. This fine species was discovered by Dr. Hector, during a visit, in company with His Excellency Sir George Grey, to the hot springs, Rotorua, in 1866. The original specimen is now deposited in the Colonial Museum, but it has unfortunately become partially discoloured. Other examples of this rare lizard have since been obtained. The discovery is an interesting one, because it affords a fresh example of that mysterious natural law which adapts the colour of certain animals to the character of their habitat, for purposes of concealment and defence. This bright sulphur-coloured lizard lives in a region remarkable for its solfataras, silicious deposits, and sulphur crusts. Dr. Hochstetter, in his graphic account of the Rotorua Lake district, informs us that all around Pohuteo there are extensive sulphur deposits, and that in Arikiroa Bay, the yellow hue of the sulphur crusts which cover the ground, is visible at a great distance. He describes Tikitere as a whole valley of solfataras, bubbling mud _ pools, sulphur ponds, and hot springs, the ground around being covered with silicious * Zool. ‘* Beagle,” Rept. 27, t. 14, £. 2. 9 deposits and sulphur crusts, and the atmosphere impregnated with sulphuretted hydrogen. The law of assimilative colouring, which, by affording protection to other- g wise defenceless species, plays an important part in the struggle for life that is ever going on around us, is thus exemplified in the present instance.—The bright green tints of Nawltinus elegans, enable it almost to defy detection amidst the evergreen foliage of Leptospermum and other shrubs ; the marbled brown skin of WV. pacificus is peculiarly adapted for concealment, as it clings motionless to the bark of a tree or hides in the crevices ; and, in like manner, the colour of WV. suwlphwreus seems specially fitted for a lizard inhabiting a sulphur-crusted and pumicestone region like the one described by Hochstetter. 12. Naultinus granulatus, Gray. Pale brown, with irregular darker cross bands, with white edges in front ; scales granular, moderate, those of under side larger ; labial shields gradually smaller. This species was originally noticed by Dr. Gray (App. Dief. N.Z.), as a mere variety of Naultinus pacificus, but he has since admitted it to a distinct rank. ‘The form appears to me of very doubtful specific value. Nauliinus brevidactylus and N. naculatus (Gray, MSS.) are probably mere varieties of the typical species, which is subject to much variation. Genus SPHENODON. 13. Sphenodon punctatum, Sclater (= Hatteria punctata, Gray). Olivaceous brown; sides and limbs with minute white specks; beneath yellowish grey ; the spines of the nuchal and dorsal crests yellow, of the caudal brown ; scales of the back, head, tail and limbs small, granular, nearly uniform ; the irregular folds of the skin fringed at the top with a series of rather large scales ; an oblique ridge of large scales on each side of the base of the tail, and a few shorter longitudinal ridges of rather smaller ones on each side of the upper part of the tail. The sexes vary both in size and colour. The male is considerably smaller than the female, and the skin is of a brighter olive, yellowish on the under parts. In the Philosophical Transactions for 1867, there is a very elaborate and exhaustive paper by Dr. Albert Giinther, on the anatomy of this species; and an interesting paper on the same subject, by Dr. Knox, appears in the Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 1869. This is the Tuatara or Tuatete of the natives. I had a pair of live ones in my possession for many months, but could never induce them to eat. They were sluggish in their movements, and when molested uttered a low, croaking note. The male measured 134 inches, and the female 16 inches. They were c 10 obtained on the small island of Karewa, in the Bay of Plenty, where this large lizard is still very plentiful, although it is well-nigh extinct on the mainland. Mr. Gilbert Mair, from whom I received them, furnished the following interesting notes :—“It was just daylight when we reached the island, and the Titis and other birds poured out of their nests underground in thousands. The whole place is completely honeycombed with their burrows, and you cannot move two steps without sinking to the knees in them. The tuataras are very plentiful. They live in holes under the big rocks, and can be only got at by digging. I suspect that, during a part of the year at least, they subsist largely on birds’ eggs.” Mr. Sclater, the Secretary of the Zoological Society, in an article con- tributed to Nature (June 23, 1870), notices the acquisition, by purchase, of a living example of this remarkable lizard, and refers to it as the only one that had reached England alive since the publication of Dr. Giinther’s admirable paper in the Philosophical Transactions (Part ii., 1867). This is evidently a mistake ; for in the early part of last year, Dr. Hector forwarded, under care of Sir George Grey, a pair of live tuataras (male and female), one of which reached the Zoological Gardens in safety, and was afterwards figured in the Illustrated London News. These specimens were obtained by Mr. Gilbert Mair, together with those sent to me, on the Island of Karewa, above referred to, which he describes as distant about nine miles from Tauranga, about two acres in extent, and composed of large masses of scoria loosely jumbled together. The Bay of Plenty natives assert that those found on the Rurima Rocks are of a different kind; and Mr. Mair adds, of his own knowledge, that those inhabiting East Cape Islet, about fifty miles to the eastward of Opotiki, are of a ‘bright green colour.” This reptile, which differs in some important structural characters from every other known saurian, and in its osteology is the most bird-like of extant lizards, was first described and figured by Dr. Gray under the name of Hatteria punctata, and has been generally designated so till lately, when (as Mr. Sclater informs us) “it was most fortunately discovered, that the generic term of Sphenodon had been previously applied to a specimen of its skull im the Museum of the College of Surgeons.” This term has accordingly been substi- tuted for Hatteria, which Mr. Sclater denounces as “ vile and barbarous.” All the New Zealand genera of lizards have been re-named by Dr. L. J. Fitzinger, of Vienna, but I have thought it best to adhere to Gray’s nomen- clature. To prevent further confusion, however, I will give here the generic equivalents, viz.:—Hulampus, Fitz.=Hinulia, Gray ; Lampropholis, Fitz. = Mocoa, Gray ; Hoplodactylus, Fitz.= Naultinus, Gray. I ought also to mention that I have omitted from my list, a species of ‘house-gecko,” described by 11 Dr. Fitzinger, as from New Zealand, under the title of Dactylocnemis Wiillerstorfi—so named in compliment to the Commander-in-chief of the “Novara” Expedition. I have not been able to obtain Dr. Fitzinger’s description of this species, but it is very certain that there is no house-gecke indigenous to New Zealand. Lampropholis moco, Fitz., is identical with Mocoa Zelandica, Gray. [Hrrata, page 5 :—Insert in Diagnosis of Hinvxia,—‘“‘ Lower eyelid covered with scales.” Mocoa,—‘‘ Lower eyelid with a transparent disk.”] Arr III.—Critical Notes on the Ornithological portion of “ Taylor's New Zealand and its Inhabitants.” By Water Buuuer, F.L.S., F.G.S. [Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, September 17, 1870.] Ty offering to the Society some critical notes on the Rev. Mr. Taylor's recently published account of the New Zealand Birds,* I need scarcely say that I am actuated solely by a desire to serve the cause of Truth, which is the foundation of all human science. Mr. Taylor has devoted much labour and research to many of the subjects treated of in his book, and deserves thanks rather than criticism at the hands of his fellow colonists. But, as the reverend author will himself admit, it would be injurious to the interests of science, to allow his mistakes in describing the Ornithology of New Zealand, to go forth to the world uncontradicted. Indeed, to make a practical application of this truth, had some friendly critic reviewed the Natural History portion of Mr. Taylor’s first edition of the work, published in 1855, it would have prevented the reproduction of some very flagrant errors in the new edition, fifteen years later. Moreover, I feel sure that my esteemed friend, Mr. Taylor, will, as a true lover of science, receive my critical remarks in the same spirit as that which dictates them. 1. The number of ascertained species belonging to the New Zealand Avifauna, is stated by Mr. Taylor at 136. Our last published lists contain the names of 160, a few of which, however, are of doubtful specific value. 2. The Koekoea (Hudynamys taitensis) does not, “as is said by some,” hibernate in New Zealand by “burying itself in the mud at the bottoms of rivers,” but migrates to the warm islands of the South Pacific. The form of its wings is sufficient to determine the migratory nature of this bird. * Te Ika a Maui; or, New Zealand and its Inhabitants. By the Rev. Richard Taylor, M.A., F.G.S. London: 1870. 12 3. The Weka (Ocy'dromus australis) is by no means “the largest kind of rail in New Zealand.” The Notornis discovered by Mr. Mantell, in 1850, is more than twice the size of the largest weka. But the author contradicts himself by stating, in another place, that the Votornis Mantelli (Owen) is “the largest known rail in the world.” 4. The Land Rail (Rallus assimilis) is incorrectly described as a bird “of a ferruginous colour.” It closely resembles the banded rail (Rallus pectoralis), of Australia, as may be seen by inspecting the numerous examples in the Colonial Museum. 5. Under the head of Fatcontpa®, the author places “Valco Nove Zelundice vel Circus Gould.” Two birds belonging to distinct genera are thus associated as synonymes. The description evidently refers to the Harrier (Circus Gouldit). 6. In treating of the so-called ‘‘ Night-hawk,” the author has confused the nomenclature, for there is no such bird known as Wierucidea Nove Zealandice Couldi. H, Nove Zelandie is the Karewarewa, and Circus Gouldii the Kahu, of the natives. 7. There is no such Owl as Athene albifrons. The author evidently refers to A. albifacies, or Whekau of the natives. 8. Heteralocha Gouldi, the rare and beautiful Huia. The author omits the specific name, and the description of the bird is outrageously inaccurate. The tail contains twelve feathers, not four as stated; the bill is ivory white, not “bright yellow.” It is the female that has the long, and not the male, and vice versa. The legs are black with a tinge of blue on slender, curved bill, their edges, and not “ bright yellow.” This bird certainly moves by a succession of hops, but I have failed to detect the resemblance of such movement to “that of the kangaroo.” 9. It is true that the Tui (Prosthemadera Nove Zelandice) becomes extremely fat at certain sersons of the year, but I entirely dissent from the assertion, that “ when uncomfortably fat it pecks its breast and causes the oil to exude.”(!) The account of its breeding habits also is incorrect, viz.: that it breeds three times in the year, laying in September three eggs, in December five, and in March, or autumn, six or seven “pure white eggs.” The tui breeds only once a year, and lays generally three, and never more than four, eggs, which are white with obscure brown markings at the larger end, and minute widely scattered spots. 10. The Kotihe (Pogonornis cincta) is incorrectly described as having “a tuft of white feathers on either cheek and wing.” The male of the species has an erective tuft of snow white feathers on each side of the head, but not on the cheek. There are no ‘white tufts” on the wings, but the secondary quills at their base, and their coverts, are white. 11. It is true that the Korimako (Anthornis melanura) has a brush tongue 13 and is a honey eater, but it nevertheless does not belong to the genus TricHo- GLossuS, which is a group of honey-eating parrots. The breeding habits of this species are also misrepresented, for I can endorse the following remark by Mr. Potts, in his excellent paper on the nidification of New Zealand birds (Trans. N. Z. Inst., Vol. ii., p. 56),—“ We must have peered into scores of nests, in various parts of the country, but we have never yet been fortunate enough to encounter such a prize as one containing ‘seven eggs, spotted with blue, upon a brown ground,’ aseribed to this bird by the Rev. R. Taylor.” The eggs of this species are generally four in number, white with a pinkish tinge and with reddish-brown spots, more numerous at the larger end. 12. The Matata (Sphenewacus punctatus) has a graduated, acuminate tail, and not “a tail composed of four long and four short feathers.” 13. Under the head of “ Troglodytine,” there is a confusion of scientific names, and errors so obviously typographical that it would be unfair to hold the author responsible for them, except as regards the supervision of the printer’s sheets. 14. By Miro albifrons, the author evidently means Petroica albifrons. “Miro” isa native name. It was adopted by M. Lesson, in 1831, to distin- guish the genus, but the name did not stand, being superseded in the following year by Mr. Swainson’s genus PETROICA. 15. There is no such bird as Muscipeta Toitot. The author probably refers to Petroica tottor. 16. The Tieke (Creadion carunculatus) has a vermilion wattle, or caruncle, pendent from the angle or corner of the mouth, on each side, and not “on either side of the head,” as described. 17. Aplonis Zelandicus. The author entirely mistakes the bird. The Ground Lark (Anthus Nove Zelandie) belongs to a totally different family. 18. The author’s conjecture that the “light variety” of Kaka (Vestor) may be Platycercus auriceps, is far wide of the mark, as NEsror is a very different genus to PLATYCERCUS, which comprises the various species of parrakeet found in New Zealand. The suggestion that the ‘‘ Kaka-korako,” or albino, belongs to the genus TRICHOGLOSSUS is even more unfortunate. 19. The Kea (Nestor notabilis) is described as a bird of “red plumage,”— a very inaccurate and insufficient description of this remarkably fine species. 20. The author is mistaken in giving the Parrakeet (Platycercus pacificus) a “band of red or yellow on the throat.” 21. I have examined very many specimens of Ardea matook, but I have never seen one corresponding with the author’s description, which gives this bird a “perfectly bald skull of a red colour.” 22. The White Crane (Ardea flavirostris) has black legs, not “‘ dark green,” as described. 23. Himantopus Nove Zelandie has a black bill, not a “red” one. 14 24. The description of the Paradise Duck (Casarca variegata) will not apply to either male or female of that species, neither of them having a ‘‘white breast.” 25. Under the head of Ancip#, the author has confused the generic and specific names in a very remarkable manner. The members of this family found on the New Zealand coasts are,— A ptenodytes Pennanti, Hudyptes pachyrhynchus, E. antipodes, Spheniscus minor, and S. wndina. 26. The last paragraph evidently refers to the Totoara, or Wood Robin (Petroica albifrons), although it is impossible to understand what the author means by “ Sylviade erythaca.” There is a well-known genus, ErRyTHAcus, established by Cuvier, of which the robin red-breast, of Europe (2. rubecula), is the type, but the New Zealand robin belongs to a different generic group. Art. IV.— Notice of a Species of Megapode, in the Auckland Museum. By Watter Butier, F.LS. [Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, October 22, 1870.] Iw a letter to the /bis, dated 7th March, 1869, Captain Hutton, writing from Auckland, says,—‘“ We have also in the Museum what is probably a new species of Megapode, from Nuipo, one of the Friendly Group.” On making an examination of this bird, I was inclined to refer it to one of the species described in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society (November, 1867), and in forwarding a description of the specimen to Dr. Finsch, of Bremen, | expressed that opinion. Dr. Finsch replies as follows :—“I am not able to make out the Wegapodius mentioned by Captain Hutton, of which you kindly sent me a description. But if the name of the island, Nuipo, which I cannot find among the Friendly Group, is identical with Niafu or Niufu, the bird would be Megapodius Pritchardi, described in our Ornithology of Central Polynesia, p. 153. You do not mention the white on the longer upper tail coverts ; otherwise the description agrees very well. From Hapai, one of the Friendly Group, Mr. Gray named the Megapodius Burnabyi, after an egg (!) received thence. Megapodius senew and M. eremita, Hartl. (Proc. Z. S., p. 830), from Pelew and Echiquier Islands, of which I described the types, are different.” On referring to the description of JZ. Pritchardi, Gray, I find that our bird is distinguishable not only by the total absence of white markings on the upper tail coverts, but by other slight differences in the coloration, which may here- after prove of specific value. The former species is thus characterized in Orn. Centr. Polyn. (Finsch and Hartlaub) :— Ad.—Alis, dorso medio tergoque rufescente-brunneis ; capite, collo, inter- 15 scapulio, pectore epigastrioque sordide arde-siaco-plumbeis ; abdomine medio, erisso et sub-caudalibus sordide griseo-flaventibus ; gutture colloque sparsim plumosis ; cauda rufescente-brunneo alboque varia ; pedibus pallide rubentibus ; rostro flavido, basi obscuriore. ihonewe. Wiemrostr Oval. 7 03'i tars! 1 ol The following are my descriptive notes referred to in Dr. Finsch’s letter :— Megapodius ? Hab. Nuipo, one of the Friendly Islands. Native name Malan. The whole of the plumage dark cinereous or slaty-brown, inclining to grey on the abdomen and under tail coverts ; and tinged with reddish-brown on the back and on the upper surface of wings. The outermost primary is dark brown ; the rest are ashy-grey with white shafts in their basal and middle portion, darkening into brown towards the tips. Bill dark horn colour. Feet dark brown ; claws black, with horn-coloured edges. Ivides ? (bright red in the stuffed specimen). Extreme length 114 inches; wing from flexure 74; tail 2; tarsus 2 ; middle toe and claw 2; hind toe and claw 1?; bill along the ridge $, along the edge of lower mandible | inch. Plumage soft but compact. Wings short and rounded, indicating very feeble powers of flight. Legs strongly formed; toes furnished with ample claws ; middle and outer nearly equal, inner 4 inch shorter. It is worthy of remark that both Megapodius senex and M. eremita rest on the authority of a single example ; and in the absence of further specimens, the present bird would appear to have at least an equal claim to recognition as distinct. J/. Burnabyi, as we have already seen, rests only on the authority of an egg from Hapai, and does not admit of any description, while JZ, Stairi, Gray, is not yet placed on the list of well-determined species. If on further investigation the bird now under notice should prove to be new to science, it might appropriately be named Megapodius Huttoni. An egg of this species, in the collection of the Auckland Museum, measures 3 inches in length by a diameter of 13. It is cream-coloured, of a regular elliptical form, and with a finely-granulate surface. Art. V.— On Zosterops lateralis in New Zealand, with an Account of its Migrations. By Water Butter, F.LS., F.G.8., F.R.G.S. (With Illustrations.) [Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, November 12, 1870.] THE genus Zosterops comprises a rather numerous group of closely allied § } St species, with a wide geographic distribution ; but, as a genus, it 1s somewhat isolated in its affinities. Mr. Gould in placing it, very properly, next to the 16 Australian honey-eaters, observes,—“I have been influenced by their approxi- mation to these birds both in form and habits, and to which they exhibit a further degree of affinity in the form and structure of their nests, but not in the colouring of their eggs, which are always blue.” But I would remark, that a stronger indication of this affinity than any mentioned by Mr. Gould, is to be found in the structure of the tongue, which is slightly pencilled at the tip, and proclaims at once the meliphagous habits of the group. Members of this genus are scattered through Southern Africa, India, China, and Japan, but the species are most numerous in the sea-girt lands of Australasia and Polynesia, where each group of islands appears to have one or more species peculiar to itself. Mr. Gould records three well marked species from Australia, two from Lord Howe’s Island, and two more from Norfolk and Phillip Islands. There is one species (Zosterops flaviceps) peculiar to the Fiji Islands, another (7. flavifrons) to the New Hebrides Group, and another (4. conspicillata) to the Ladrone or Marian Islands. Two species inhabit New Caledonia (27. xanthochroa and Z. griseonota) ; one (Z. cinerea) is recorded from the Caroline Group, and another (Z. melanops) from the Loyalty Islands. The New Zealand representative of the genus has been pronounced by competent authority to be identical with Zosterops lateralis, Lath. (=ceru- lescens, Gould), an inhabitant of Tasmania, New South Wales, and South Australia. Generic characters.—Bill moderate and slightly curved, with the culmen curved, and the sides compressed to the tip which is acute and emarginated ; the gonys long and slightly ascending; the gape furnished with very short weak bristles; the nostrils basal and placed in a broad groove, with the opening closed by a lunate scale. Wings moderate ; with the first quill very small, and the fourth and fifth equal and iongest. Tail moderate, broad and shghtly emarginated in the middle. 'Tarsi rather longer than the middle toe, and covered in front with broad scales. Toes rather long; with the outer toe cower rather longer than the inner and united at.its base ; the hind toe long, strong and armed with a long curved claw. (G@. &. Gray.) ZOSTEROPS LATERALIS, Latham. The Silver-eye. Tau-hou, Kanohi-mowhiti, Poporohe, and Iringatau, of the natives. Zosterops ceerulescens, Gould. — Hd. Bk. Birds of Australia, Volae p- 087. Zosterops dorsalis, Vig. and Hors., in Linn. Trans., Vol. xv., p. 235; Gould, Birds of Australia, Fol., Vol. iv., pl. 81. Sylvia lateralis, Lath.—Ind. Orn. Supp., p. lv. Certhia cerulescens, Lath.—Id., p. xxxviii. TRANS. N.Z. INSTITUTE, VOL.IL Plate IT. Fig 2. Big i LOSTEROPS CHLORONOTUS (after GR Gray) Hig. 2. LOSTEROPS LATERALIS. Wiuller Led. TP ltl. Proted ub the Gev. Coulis ess, ay dMarbe, 17 Certhia diluta, Shaw.—Gen. Zool., Vol. vill., p. 244. Philedon ceeruleus, Cuvier. Meliphaga cerulea, Steph.—Cont. of Shaw's Gen. Zool., Vol. xiv., p. 264. Sylvia annulosa, var. b.—Sevains. Zool., Il., 1st. Semn ple los Zosterops tenuirostris, Gould.—Proc. Z. Sy SBMS im, 1G: The story of the irregular appearance of this little bird in New Zealand has for years past been a fruitful topic of discussion among those who take an interest in our local natural history. Whether it came over to us originally from Australia, or whether it is only a species from the extreme south of N ew Zea- land, which has of late years perceptibly increased, and has migrated northwards, is still a matter of conjecture. The evidence which, with Dr. Hector’s assist- ance, I have been able to collect on this subject is somewhat conflicting, but I have myself arrived at the conclusion that the species, whether identical or not with the Australian bird which it closely resembles, is in reality an indigenous one. The history of the species, however, from a North Island point of view is very interesting and suggestive. It appeared on the north side of Cook’s Strait, for the first time within the memory of the oldest native inhabitants, in the winter of 1856. In the early part of June of that year I first heard of its occurrence at Waikanae, a native settlement on the west coast, about forty miles from Wellington. The native mailman brought in word that a new bird had been seen, and that it was a visitor from some other land. A week later he brought intelligence that large flocks had appeared, and that the “tau-hou” (stranger) swarmed in the brush-wood near the coast 5 reporting further that they seemed weary after their journey, and that the natives had caught many of them alive. Simultaneously with this intelligence, T observed a pair of them in a garden hedge, in Wellington, and a fortnight later they appeared in large numbers, frequenting the gardens and shrubberies both in and around the town. ‘They were to be seen daily in considerable flocks, hurrying forwards from tree to tree, and from one garden to another, with a continuous, noisy twitter. In the early morning, a flock of them might be seen clustering together on the topmost twigs of a leafless willow, uttering short plaintive notes, and if disturbed, suddenly rising in the air and wheeling off with a confused and rapid twittering. When the flock had dispersed in the shrub- bery, I always observed that two or more birds remained as sentinels or call- birds, stationed on the highest twigs ; and that on the slightest alarm, the sharp signal note of these watchers would instantly bring the whole fraternity together. The number of individuals in a flock, at that time, never exceeded forty or fifty, but of late years the number has sensibly increased, it being a common thing now to see a hundred or more consorting together at one time. They appeared to be uneasy during, or immediately preceding, a shower of rain, becoming more noisy and more restless in their movements. They proclaimed D 18 themselves a blessing by preying on and arresting the progress of that noxious aphis known as “ American blight” (Schizoneura lanigera). They remained with us for three months, and then departed as suddenly as they had come. They left before the orchard fruits, of which they are also fond, had ripened, and having proved themselves real benefactors they earned the gratitude of the settlers, while all the local newspapers sounded their well- deserved praises. During the two years that followed, the Zosterops was never heard of again in any part of the North Island ; but in the winter of 1858 it again crossed the strait, and appeared in Wellington and its environs in greater numbers than before. During the four succeeding years it regularly wintered with us, recrossing the strait on the approach of spring. Since the year 1862, when it commenced to breed with us, it has been a permanent resident in the North Island, and from that time it continued to advance northwards. Mr. Colenso, of Napier, reports that it was first seen at Ahuriri in 1862. On his journey to Te Wairoa, in that year, he saw it at Aropauanui, and found its nest con- taining four fledgelings. The natives of that place told him that it was anew bird to them, they having first observed it there in the preceding year, 1861. The Hon. Major Atkinson, on the occasion of a visit, as Defence Minister, to the native tribes of the Upper Wanganui, in April, 1864, made enquiries on the subject, and was informed by the natives that the Zosterops had appeared in their district for the first time in 1863. As far as I can ascertain, they penetrated to Waikato in the following year, and pushed their way as far as Auckland in 1865. Captain Hutton reports that in the winter of 1867 they had spread all over the province, as far north as the Bay of Islands, and in 1868 he writes,—‘ They are now in the most northerly parts of this island.” That they have continued to move on still further northward would appear to be the case from the following interesting notes by Mr. G. B. Owen, communicated to me by Captain Hutton :—“ On my passage from Tahiti to Auckland, per brig “ Rita,” about 300 miles north of the North Cape of New Zealand, I saw one morning several little birds flying about the ship. From their twittering and manner of flying I concluded that they were land birds, and they were easily caught. They were of a brownish grey and yellowish colour, with a little white mark round the eye. I saw several pass over the ship during the day, travelling northwards. I arrived in Auckland a few days afterwards, on the 20th May, when the so-called Blight Birds appeared here in such numbers, and I at once recognized them as the same.” This tendency of migration northwards appears to me quite inconsistent with the idea of the species having come to us from Australia. Now let us ascertain something of its recorded history in the South Island. Mr. Potts, a most careful and experienced observer, writes to me :— WS) 7 first observed it (in Canterbury) after some rough weather, July 28, 1856. I saw about half-a-dozen specimens, on some isolated black birch trees in the Rockwood Valley in the Malvern Hills.” In the Auckland Museum there is a specimen of this bird, sent from Nelson by Mr. St. John (an industrious bird collector), in 1856. The skin was labelled “stranger,” and in the letter accom- panying it, Mr. St. John states that these birds had made their first appear- ance in Nelson that winter (the same in which they crossed to the North Tsland), and that “no one, not even the natives, had ever seen them before.” -On a visit to Nelson in the winter of 1860, I saw numerous flights of them in the gardens and shrubberies. The results of very careful enquiries on the spot satisfied me that since their first appearance there, in 1856, they had continued to visit Nelson every year, arriving at the commencement of winter, and vanishing on the approach of warmer days as suddenly as they had come. On every hand the settlers bore testimony to their good services in destroying the cabbage blight and other insect pests. About the middle of June, 1861, I met with small flocks of this bird on the Canterbury Plains, evidently on their passage northward. I first observed them in the low scrub on the broad shingle beds of the Rakaia, advancing in a very hurried manner, not high in the air, as migrations are usually performed, but close to the ground, and occasionally resting. But that this bird is capable of protracted flight is evidenced by the form of its wings, which are of the lengthened, acuminate character, common to most birds of passage. During a visit to Dunedin, in the summer of 1860, the Rev. Mr. Stack observed numerous flocks in the gardens and thickets in the environs of the town. At this season they had disappeared from the Province of Canterbury and all the country further north. In the following summer (1861), I met with numerous stragglers in the northern parts of the Canterbury Province, and I understand from Mr. Potts, that since that time it has been a permanent resident there, increasing in numbers every year. Mr. Buchanan, of the Geological Survey Department, informs me that he observed the Zosterops at Otago, on his first arrival there in 1851, five years previous to its appearance in the North Island ; and the following extracts from letters, communicated to me by Dr. Hector, go still further to prove that the species is an indigenous one there, and is only new to the country lying further north. Mr. Newton Watt, R.M., of Campbell Town (Southland), writes as follows : — “‘ Paitu, a chief here, and I believe the oldest man in the tribe, says it was always here. Howell says that he first noticed them on the west coast, about Milford Sound, in the year 1832, in flocks of thirty or forty, but never noticed them here (Riverton) till about 1863, when he saw them inland and in smaller flocks. On my way back from Riverton, I was mentioning it at the Club at Invercargill, and a gentleman present told me he had first noticed 20 them, about eighty miles inland, about the year 1861, and that his attention was first called to them from the circumstance that they were gregarious,—a habit not common with New Zealand birds. At Campbell Town it appeared to be more scarce, being seen only in small flocks, varying in number from six * to twelve. * In 1866 my sons noticed numbers of them among my cabbages, and observed that the cats caught many of them; and further, that whilst my cabbages in the three preceding years were infested with blight, in that year there was little or no blight upon them till very late in the season. They appear to migrate from this in the winter, or at any rate to be scarce.” Mr. James P. Maitland, R.M., of Molyneux, writes :—‘“‘From what I hear from old settlers of seventeen or eighteen years standing—whom I can trust as men of observation—I am convinced we have had the birds here for that time at any rate, although all agree that they have become much more numerous everywhere during the last seven years; and this year (1867) in particular, I observe them in larger flocks than ever. I confess I do not recollect noticing the bird until about six years ago ; but the smallness of their number at that time, and the smallness of the bird itself, may easily account for its being unnoticed in the bush. The gardens seem to be the great attraction here, and they are the best hands I know at picking a cherry or plum stone clean !” All my own personal enquiries at Otago, during my first visit there in February, 1865, led me to the same conclusion. In the selection of its breeding home, this bird has manifested with us the same erratic tendencies: thus, for the first three or four years after its perma- nent location in the North Island, it wintered in the low lands and the districts bordering on the sea coast, and retired in summer to the higher forest lands of the interior to breed and rear its young. In the summer of 1865, a few stragglers were observed to remain behind all through the season, and in the following year they sojourned in flocks and freely built their nests in our shrub- beries and thickets, and even among the stunted fern and tea-tree (Leptospermum) near the sea shore. From that time to the present it has ranked as one of our commonest birds all the year round; and, what is even more remarkable, it has very perceptibly increased in numbers, while most of our other insectivo- rous birds are rapidly declining and threaten ere long to be extinct. To the philosophical naturalist the history of the Zosterops in New Zealand is pregnant with interest, and I feel that no apology is needed for my having thus minutely recorded it. A specimen which I gave to the Rev. R. Taylor, and forwarded by him to the British Museum, was identified by Dr. J. E. Gray as Zosterops dorsalis. A notice thereof appeared in the Annals of Natural History, and in other scientific papers, and the supposed migration of the species from Australia to New Zealand excited considerable interest. Zosterops dorsalis is found to be identical with Z. lateralis, Latham, and Mr. Gould’s Z. cerulescens is merely a 21 synonyme of the same species. The last named writer informs us that “this bird is stationary in all parts of Tasmania, New South Wales, and South Australia, where it is not only to be met with in the forests and thickets, but also in nearly every garden.” Dr. Finsch, of Bremen, to whom specimens of the New Zealand bird were forwarded by Dr. Haast, pronounced it Zosterops lateralis, Lath. ; while Mr. Waterhouse, of the South Australian Museum, to whom Dr. Hector forwarded examples for examination, considers it distinct from the Australian species “although much resembling it.” The natives distinguish the bird as Tau-hou (which means “a stranger”), or Kanohi-mowhiti, which may be interpreted spectacle-eye or ring-eye. It is also called Poporohe and Iringatau, names suggested by its accidental or periodical occurrence. By the settlers it has been variously designated as Ring-eye, Wax-eye, White-eye or Silver-eye, in allusion to the beautiful circlet of satiny-white feathers which surrounds the eyes ; and quite as commonly the “ Blight Bird,” or “ Winter-migrant.” I have frequently watched the habits of this little bird, and with much interest. As already stated it is gregarious, flying and consorting in flocks, except in the breeding season, when they are to be observed singly or in pairs. As soon as a flock of them alights on a tree, or clump of brush-wood, they immediately disperse in quest of food; and on a cautious approach, may be seen prosecuting a very diligent search among the leaves and flowers, and in the crevices of the bark, for the small insects and aphides on which they principally subsist. I have opened many specimens, at all seasons, and I have invariably found their stomachs crammed with minute insects and their larvee. Tn some I have found the large pulpy scale insect (Coccus sp.), of a dull green colour, which is commonly found adhering to the leaves of the ramarama (Myrtus bullata); also small caterpillars, grasshoppers, and coleoptera, and occasionally the small fruity seeds of Rubus australis and other native plants. In our orchards and gardens it regales itself freely on plums, cherries, figs, gooseberries, and other soft fruits, but it far more than compensates for this petty pilfering, by the wholesale war it carries on against the various species of insects that afflict our fruit trees and vegetables. It feeds on that disgusting little aphis known as American Blight, which so rapidly covers with a fatal cloak of white the stems and branches of our best apple trees ; it clears our early cabbages of a pestilent little insect that, left unchecked, would . utterly destroy the crop ; it visits our gardens and devours another swarming parasite that covers our roses and other flowering plants ; to say nothing of its general services as an insectivorous bird. Surely in return for these important benefits, to both orchard and garden, the flocks of Zosterops may justly be held entitled to an occasional feed of cherries, or to a small tithe of the ripe fruits which they have done so much to defend and cherish ! 22 This bird emits a soft plaintive cry, repeated at short intervals ; but on the wing, and especially when consorting in a flock, it utters a rapid twittering note. During the breeding season the male indulges in a low musical strain of exquisite sweetness, but very subdued, as if singing to himself or performing for the exclusive benefit of his partner. This song is something like the sub- dued strain of the Korimako (Anthornis melanura), but much softer. If shot at and wounded it generally manages to escape capture by scrambling nimbly off into the thicket, hiding itself and remaining perfectly silent till the danger has passed. Frequent attempts have been made to keep it caged, but, although it will readily feed, I have never known it survive confinement many weeks. Mr. Colenso observes that ‘‘ when they retire to roost they sleep in pairs, cuddling quite close together like love-parrots ; and before they fold their heads under their wings they bill and preen each other’s head and neck most lovingly, uttering at the same time a gentle twittering note.” Mr. Potts informs me that, in Canterbury, this species begins nesting early in October. In one instanze, within his own observation, the birds commenced incubation on October 16, the young were hatched on October 25, and left the nest on November 4. In the North Island the breeding season is somewhat later. As late as the 24th of December I met with a nest in the Taupo-Patea ‘country, containing two perfectly fresh eggs. The nest is a slight, cup-shaped structure, with a rather large cavity for the size of the bird, and is generally found suspended by side fastenings to hanging vines, or to the slender twigs of Leptospermum, Olearia, and other shrubs, and sometimes to the common fern (Pteris aquilina). The eggs are generally three in number (sometimes four), ovoiconical in form, and of a beautiful, uniform pale blue colour. Nests of this species exhibit some variety, both as to structure and the materials of which they are composed. Of three specimens now before me; one is of slight construction and shallow in its cavity, composed externally of green coloured lichen, spiders’ nests, the downy seed-vessels of the pikiarero (flowering clematis) and a few dry leaves; lined internally with long horse- hair disposed in a circular form. Another is of smaller size, more compact, composed externally of crisp, dry moss, and internally of grass bents with a few long hairs interlaced ; while the third has the exterior walls constructed entirely of spiders’ nests and stiff fibrous mosses, the former predominating, and the interior lining composed wholly of long horse-hair. A specimen which I found suspended in a clump of creeping kohia (Passifora tetandra) was composed externally of the pale green and rust- coloured lichen so abundant on the branches of dead timber, intermixed with spiders’ webs, and lined inside with dry fibrous grasses, the whole being laced together with hair, the long straggling ends of which projected from every part 23 of the nest; and another which was obtained from the low brush-wood bor- dering on the sea shore was built of sheep’s wool, spiders’ nests, pellets of cow- hair, and fine seaweed, firmly bound together with long thread-like fibres, apparently the rootlets of some aquatic plant, and lined internally with fine grass bents and soft feathers. Sometimes the nest is constructed wholly of bents and dry grass. Adult.—Crown, sides of the head, nape, upper surface of wings, uropygium and upper tail coverts bright yellowish olive ; back and scapularies cinereous tinged with green; eyes surrounded by a narrow circlet of silvery white feathers, with a line of black in front and below. Throat, foreneck, and breast greyish white, tinged more or less with yellow towards the angle of the lower mandible ; abdomen and under tail coverts fulvous white ; sides pale chocolate brown. Quills and tail feathers dusky brown, margined with yellowish olive ; lining of wings white, the edges tinged with yellow. Bill dark brown ; under mandible whitish at the base. Ivrides, tarsi, and toes ight brown. Length 5 inches ; extent of wings 74; wing from flexure 24; tail 2; tarsus 2; middle toe and claw 9-16ths; hind toe and claw }; bill along the ridge 2, along the edge of lower mandible $. Young.—A young bird of this species brought to me on the 28th Decem- ber had the colours paler than in the adult ; the throat and breast pale cinereous grey ; sides fulvous brown ; the white eye circlet absent, the orbits being still destitute of feathers; tarsi and toes light flesh colour; bill pale brown ; rictal membrane yellow.* The characters given above as diagnostic of the genus Zosterops (Vigors and Horsfield) are taken from Gray’s Genera of Birds. I have discovered, however, that the present species is in some respects aberrant from the type, and that Mr. Gray’s generic characters are not sufficiently comprehensive. The typical Zosterops has the wing moderate, the first quill very small and the fourth and fifth equal and longest ; whereas the species under consideration has the wings long and pointed, the first quill only one-sixteenth of an inch shorter than the second, which is equal to the third, the fourth being scarcely shorter and the rest rapidly graduated. Moreover, the bill which is slightly curved in the typical species, is straight and acuminate in Zosterops lateralis. These modifications of form, which will be at once apparent on reference to the accompanying figures (Plate III.), may, I think, be considered of sub-generic importance. At any rate, the peculiar adaptation of the wing in our bird to its migratory habits of life is deserving of special notice. * Since the above paper was written, Archdeacon Stock, who, as the author well remembers, took a lively interest in the Zosterops on its first arrival in 1856, has furnished the following interesting note :—‘‘I saw on Friday last, November 11, at Wilkinson’s tea gardens (Wellington), what appeared to be a new variety of the Blight Bird. The white circle around the eye was not so distinct; and the head and throat were orange coloured.” « Art. VI.—On the Structure and Habits of the Huia (Heteralocha Gouldi). By WattTer Buuuer, F.LS., F.G.S. (With Illustrations. ) [Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, November 12, 1870.] Ay article in Nature (June 23) bearing the initials of a well-known naturalist, notices the arrival of a living example of the Huia (Heteralocha Gouldt) at the Zoological Society’s Gardens, London. The specimen was a male bird, and the writer in describing the peculiarity in the form of the bill that distin- guishes it from the female, observes,—‘“‘ Such a divergence in the structure of the beak of the two sexes is very uncommon, and scarcely to be paralleled in the class of Birds. It is difficult to guess at the reason of it, or to explain it on Darwinian or any other principles.” Although Dr. Hector, with his usual good fortune, has succeeded in getting a fine series of specimens for the Colonial Museum, this bird undoubtedly ranks as one of our rarest and most valuable species. Erelong it will exist only in our museums and other collections, and, for the sake of science, it is important that everything connected with its natural history should be faith- fully recorded and preserved. In the absence of any published account of its habits, beyond mere fragmentary notices, I have thought the subject of sufficient interest to justify my placing before the Society the following complete account of all that I have been able to ascertain respecting it. The peculiar habits of feeding, which I have described from actual observation, furnish to my own mind a sufficient “reason” for the different development of the mandibles in the two sexes, and may, I think, be accepted as a satisfactory solution of the problem. i Before proceeding to speak of the bird itself, I would remark on the very restricted character of its habitat. It is confined within narrow geographical boundaries, being met with only in the Ruahine, Tararua, and Rimutaka mountain ranges, with their divergent spurs, and in the intervening wooded valleys. It is occasionally found in the Fagus forests of the Wairarapa Valley, and in the rugged country stretching to the westward of the Ruahine Range, but it seldom wanders far from its mountain haunts. I have been assured of its occurrence in the wooded country near Massacre Bay (Province of Nelson), but I have not been able to obtain any satisfactory evidence on this point. It is worthy of remark that the natives, who prize the bird very highly for its tail feathers (which are used as a badge of mourning), state that, unlike other species which have of late years diminished and become more confined in their range, the Huia was, from time immemorial, limited in its distribution to the district I have indicated. My first specimen of this singular bird (an adult female) was obtained in l TRANS.N.Z. INSTITUTE. VOL.UU Plate IV. LIETERALOCHA GOULD/. Lrg.J Mute. Lg. 2 & 3. Lenvate. Willer Ded. TB. lith. Printed ab the Ger. Go.Litth. Press, by TF Earle. Cone 25 1855, from the Wainuiomata Hills, a continuation of the Rimutaka Range, bounding the Wellington Harbour on the northern side,—the same locality from which Dr. Dieffenbach, nearly twenty years before, received the examples figured by Mr. Gould in his magnificent work on the Birds of Australia. I have since obtained many fine specimens, and in the summer of 1864, I succeeded in getting a pair of live ones. They were caught by a native in the ranges, and brought down to Manawatu, a distance of more than fifty miles, on horseback. The owner refused to take money for them, but I negotiated an exchange for a valuable greenstone. I kept these birds for more than a year, waiting a favourable opportunity of forwarding them to the Zoological Society of London. Through the carelessness, however, of a servant, the male bird was accidentally killed, and the other manifesting the utmost distress, pined for her mate and died ten days afterwards. The readiness with which these birds adapted themselves to a condition of captivity was very remarkable. Within a few days after their capture they had become perfectly tame, and did not appear to feel in any degree the restraint of confinement, for, although the window of the apartment in which they were kept was thrown open and replaced by thin wire netting, I never saw them make any attempt to regain their liberty. It is well known, how- ever, that birds of different species differ widely in natural disposition and temper. The captive eagle frets in his sulky pride, the bittern refuses food and dies untamable, the fluttering little humming bird beats itself to death against the tiny bars of its prison in its futile efforts to escape, and many species that appear to suvmit readily to their changed condition of life, ultimately pine, sicken, and die. There are other species again which cheerfully adapt them- selves to their new life, although caged at maturity, and seem to thrive fully as well under confinement as in a state of nature. Parrots, for example, are easily tamed, and I have met with numerous instances of their voluntary return after having regained their liberty. This tamability of character was exemplified to perfection in the Huias. They were fully adult birds, and were caught in the following simple manner. Attracting the birds by an imitation of their cry to the place where he lay concealed, the native, with the aid of a long rod, slipped a running knot over the head of the female and secured her. The male, emboldened by the loss of his mate, suffered himself to be easily caught in the same manner. On receiving these birds I set them free in a well-lined and properly ventilated room, measuring about six feet by eight feet. They appeared to be stiff after their severe jolt on horseback, and after feeding freely on the huhu grub, a pot of which the native had brought with them, they retired to one of the perches I had set up for them, and cuddled together for the night. In the morning I found them somewhat recruited, feeding with avidity, sipping water from a dish, and flitting about in a very active manner. It was E 26 amusing to note their treatment of the huhu. This grub, the larva of a large nocturnal beetle (Prionoplus reticularis), which constitutes their principal food, infests all decayed timber, attaining at maturity the size of a man’s little finger. Like all grubs of its kind, it is furnished with a hard head and horny mandibles. On offering one of these to the Huia, he would seize it in the middle and, at once transferring it to his perch and placing one foot firmly upon it, he would tear off the hard parts, then throwing the grub upwards to secure it lengthwise in his bill, would swallow it whole. For the first few days these birds were compara- tively quiet, remaining stationary on their perch as soon as thei hunger was appeased. But they afterwards became more lively and active, indulging in play with each other and seldom remaining more than a few moments in one position. I sent to the woods for a smal] branched tree, and placed it in the centre of the room, the floor of which was spread with sand and gravel. It was most interesting to watch these graceful birds hopping from branch to branch, occasionally spreading the tail into a broad fan, displaying themselves in a variety of natural attitudes and then meeting to caress each other with their ivory bills, uttering at the same time a low affectionate twitter. They generally moved along the branches by a succession of light hops after the manner of the kokako (Calleas cinerea), and they often descended to the floor where their mode of progression was the same. They seemed never to tire of probing and chiselling with their beaks. Having discovered that the canvas lining of the room was pervious, they were incessantly piercing it, and tearing off large strips of paper till, in the course of a few days, the walls were completely defaced. But what interested me most of all was the manner in which the birds assisted each other in their search for food, because it appeared to explain the use, in the economy of nature, of the differently formed bills in the two sexes. To divert the birds I introduced a log of decayed wood infested with the huhu grub. They at once attacked it, carefully probing the softer parts with their bills, and then vigorously assailing them, scooping out the decayed wood till the larva or pupa was visible, when it was carefully drawn from its cell, treated in the way described above, and then swallowed. The very different development of the mandibles in the two sexes enabled them to perform separate offices. The male always attacked the more decayed portions of the wood, chiselling out his prey after the manner of some wood- peckers, while the female probed with her long plient bill the other cells, where the hardness of the surrounding parts resisted the chisel of her mate. Some- times I observed the male remove the decayed portion without being able to reach the grub, when the female would at once come to his aid, and accom- plish with her long slender bill what he had failed to do. I noticed, however, that the female always appropriated to her own use the morsels thus obtained. For some days they refused to eat anything but huhu, but by degrees they 27 yielded to a change of food, and at length would eat. cooked potato and raw meat minced up in small pieces. They were kept supplied with a dish of fresh water, but seldom washed themselves although often repairing to the vessel to drink. Their ordinary call was a soft and clear-whistle, at first prolonged, then short and quickly repeated, both birds joining in it. When excited or hungry they raised their whistling note to a high pitch ; at other times it was softly modulated, with variations, or changed into a low chuckling note. Sometimes their cry resembled the whining of young puppies so exactly as almost to defy detection. Dr. Dieffenbach, in forwarding his specimens of the Huia to Mr. Gould, in 1836, wrote,—‘“ These fine birds can only be obtained, with the help of a native, who calls them with a shrill and long continued whistle resembling the sound of the native name of the species. After an extensive journey in the hilly forest in search of them, I had at last the pleasure of seeing four alight on the lower branches of the trees near which the native accompanying me stood. They came quick as lightning, descending from branch to branch, spreading out the tail and throwing up the wings.” I have had only a single opportunity of observing this species in its native haunts, and I was struck by the same peculiarities in its manners and general demeanour. In the summer of 1867, accompanied by a friend and two natives, I made an expe- dition into the Ruahine Ranges in search of novelties. After a tramp on foot of nearly twenty miles, through a densely wooded country, we were rewarded by finding the Huia. We were climbing the side of a steep acclivity, and had halted to dig specimens of the curious vegetating caterpillar (Spheria Robertsti), which was abundant there. While thus engaged, we heard the soft flute note of the Huia in the wooded gully far beneath us. One of our native companions at once imitated the call, and in a few seconds a pair of beautiful Huias, male and female, appeared in the branches near us. They remained gazing at us only a few instants, and then started off up the side of the hill, moving by a-succession of hops, often along the ground, the male generally leading. Waiting till he could get both birds in a line, my friend at length pulled trigger, but the cap snapped and the Huias instantly disap- peared down the wooded ravine. Then followed a chevy of some three miles, down the mountain side and up its rugged ravines. Once more, owing to the dampness of the weather, the cap snapped and the birds were finally lost sight of. I observed that their mode of progression was similar to that of the kokako, but far more rapid. While in motion they kept near each other and uttered constantly a soft twitter. The tail was often partially spread, while the bright orange lappets were usually compressed under the rami of the lower jaw. We camped that night near the bed of a mountain rivulet, in a deep wooded ravine, and soon after dawn we again heard the rich notes of a Huia. 98 Failing to allure him by an imitation of the call, although he frequently answered it, we crossed to the other side of the gully, and climbed the hill to a clump of tallrimu trees (Dacrydium cupressinum), where we found him. He was perched on the high limb of arimu, chiselling it with his powerful beak, and tearing off large pieces of bark, doubtless in search of insects, and it was the falling of these fragments that guided us to the spot, and enabled us to find him. This solitary bird, which proved to be an old male, had frequented this neighbourhood, as we were informed by the natives, for several years, his notes being familiar to the people who passed to and fro along the Otairi track, leading to Taupo. On asking a native how the Huia contrived to extract the huhu from the decayed timber, he replied, ‘‘by digging with his pick-axe”— an expression which I found to be truthfully descriptive of the operation ; and on dissecting this specimen I found an extraordinary development of the requisite muscles. The skin was very tough, indicating probably extreme age. The stomach contained numerous remains of coleopterous insects, of the kind usually found under the bark of trees, also one or two caterpillars. In the stomach of another, I once discovered seeds of the hinau (Zl@ocarpus dentatus) and the remains of a small earth grub. Dr. Dieffenbach states that in the stomachs of his specimens he found hinau berries, together with dipterous and coleopterous insects. Of the nidification of the Huia nothing is at present known. I have been assured, however, by a native, that he once found the nest of this bird in the cavity of a tree, that it contained two young birds, a male and a female, and that they differed from the adults in having the wattles flesh-white instead of orange. Mr. Gould, who was the first to characterize the genus (Proc. Zool. Soc., Part iv., p. 144), was deceived by the great difference in the form of the bill, and treated the sexes as distinct species, naming them respectively Veomorpha crassirostris and N. acutirostris,—a very natural mistake, ‘many genera even,” as Mr. Gould observes, “ having been founded upon more trivial differences of character.” Mr. G. R. Gray having determined their identity, proposed to - substitute the specific name of Veomorpha Gouldi, in compliment to the original describer. The generic term has since been changed to Heteralocha, and the Huia continues to be the sole representative of this anomalous genus. The head of the female as figured in Vatwre (confessedly only a copy), is quite out of all natural proportion to that of the male, and is apt to give a false idea of its relative size and thickness. In the generality of specimens, and in the published drawings that have hitherto appeared, the bill is of a yellowish horn colour, but this instead of being natural is caused by the decomposition of the animal matter inside. I have succeeded in retaining the ivory whiteness of the bill, in preserved specimens, by treating them after the manner recommended by Waterton for 29 preserving the bill of the American toucan (see Wanderings, p. 103), that is to say, by removing with a sharp scalpel the whole of the inner substance, leaving nothing but the outer shell, which then retains its original appearance. The process is a tedious one, but the result amply repays the trouble. The sexes are alike in plumage, and differ very slightly in size. The whole of the plumage is black, with a green metallic gloss; the tail with a broad terminal band of white. Bill ivory white, darkening to bluish grey at the base. Wattles large, rounded, and of a rich orange colour in the living birds. Legs and feet bluish grey ; claws light horn colour. In some examples the white at the end of the tail is tinged more or less with rufous, while in others the under tail coverts also are tipped with white. Male.—Length 183 inches ; extent of wings 224; wing from flexure 8 ; tail 74; bill along the ridge 23, along the edge of lower mandible 2? ; tarsus 3 ; middle toe and claw 24; hind toe and claw 2. Female.—Length 19} inches ; extent of wings 21 ; wing from flexure 74 ; tail 74; bill along the ridge 4, along the edge of lower mandible 44 ; tarsus 3 ; middle toe and claw 2}; hind toe and claw 13. Figures 1 and 2 (Plate IV.) represent the heads of the male and female which I had in my possession alive, and will give an accurate idea of the divergence of sexual character treated of above. Figure 3 represents a more highly curved form of the bill than is usually met with, and is taken from the dried head of a Huia given to me, many years ago, by a native who was wearing it as an ear ornament. Art. VII.—On the Katipo, or Venomous Spider of New Zealand. By Watter Butter, F.LS., F.G.S. [Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, November 12, 1870.] So little appears to be known of the natural history of the Katipo, or Venomous Spider of New Zealand, that I have deemed the following observa- tions on its range and habits of sufficient interest to warrant my placing them before the Society. =i The first scientific notice, so far as I am aware, of the existence of a poisonous spider in this country, was furnished by Dr. Ralph, formerly of Wellington, in a communication to the Linnean Society, in 1856. (See Journal, Proc. Lin. Soc., Vol. i., Zool., 1856, p. 1-2.) Dr. Ralph’s paper contained a short description of the full-grown spider, observations on its nesting habits, and an account of experiments which he had made in order to test the potency of its venom. The native name, Katipo, signifies “night-stinger,” (being derived from 30 two words, kakati, to sting, and po, the night,) and although more strictly applicable to the venomous spider, is often used to denote a wasp or other stinging insect. The exact range of this spider—interesting as being the only poisonous vermin in New Zealand—cannot yet be accurately determined ; but it appears to be rather local in its distribution, while its habitat is strictly confined to the sand-hills skirting the sea shore. Along the coast from Wainui to Waikanae (on the north side of Cook’s Strait), it is excessively abundant. From Wai- kanae to Horowhenua it is comparatively scarce ; but at the latter place, and for a few miles further north, it is said to be abundant. At Manawatu, and thence along the coast for twenty or thirty miles, it is very rare. At the mouth of the Wanganui River, again, it is very abundant, and a story is still current among the natives of the district about a fishing party, all of whom were bitten by this dreaded spider, and, in two cases, with fatal results. I was assured by Matene Te Whiwhi, of Otaki, that in former times a war party to which he belonged, on camping for the night near the mouth of the Wanganui River, had no less than ten men bitten before morning, some of whom suffered very severely. The Rev. Mr. Stannard informs me that he found the Katipo very plentiful, a few years ago, on the sea coast between Waitotara and Patea. On some parts of the Taranaki coast it is known to be very abundant. It is plentiful near the mouth of the Mokau River, but becomes scarcer as we go further north. It occurs, more or less abundantly, on the shores of the Bay of ‘Plenty, but never beyond the littoral zone of sand dunes. It is also found, but less numerously, on the east coast of the Wellington Province. Major Heaphy obtained a specimen at Massacre Bay, near Nelson, in the South Island. The notices of the Katipo which have hitherto been published contain many inaccuracies of description. In a very interesting paper communicated to the Auckland Institute, by Dr. Wright (Zransactions, 1869, p. 81), the sea-shore Katipo is described as having a “dark glossy body with a marked red spot on the back.” The Rev. R. Taylor, in his Leaf of the Natural History of New Zealand, writes thus :—“The Katipo—venomous spider—one kind red, and one black with a red spot upon its back.” Major Heaphy expresses his doubts as to the existence of a red Katipo, as described by Mr. Taylor. (Transactions, 1869, p. 83.) Dr. Thompson, in his Story of New Zealand, says that there are two poisonous spiders—“ the one found in the dry sea sand, having a bright red spot on its dark back, the other, found inland, being of a yellow colour.” (p. 30.) According to another account, the inland Katipo has ‘a round black and shining body but without the spot.” In his recent work, New Zealand and its Inhabitants, Mr. Taylor describes the Katipo as “a black spider very delicately formed, with.a red cross on its back, surrounded with white spots; the female being entirely black.” Dr. Hochstetter, who had 31 neyer actually seen the Katipo, describes it more correctly as ‘a small black spider with a red stripe on its back.” Dr. Ralph, in the paper already referred to, mentions that this spider presents a very different appearance at different periods of its age, but he does not attempt to describe these progressive changes towards maturity. Having recently, through the kind assistance of Mr. Knocks, of Otaki, obtained a fine collection of live Katipos, in every stage of growth, together with their cocoons or nests, I am enabled to place before the Society a.more detailed description of the species than has ever yet appeared. There is a small extent of sand-hills near Waikanae, on the west coast, noted among the natives for the abundance of Katipo. A settler residing there, named Jenkins, assured me that he could without difficulty “fill a quart measure in less than a day.” In 1857, I collected in that locality a consider- able number of them, and kept them alive for several weeks in order to study their habits. And I may here mention a circumstance illustrative of the wonderful tenacity of life possessed by some of the Arachnida. I shut up a full-grown Katipo in a chemist’s chip-box, on the 11th May, and placing it among other objects in my cabinet, it was overlooked and forgotten. I conse- quently did not open the chip-box again until the 8th October following, when I found the spider alive and active, and apparently none the worse for five months’ fasting! As, however, in other instances I have known them perish at the end of a week for want of food, I am inclined to consider the above case corroborative of the Native account, that on the approach of cold weather the Katipo retires to a cell underground, and passes the winter in a torpid state, and that in this condition it may be handled with perfect impunity. Mr. Taylor, in the published account already noticed, states that ‘the Katipo does not make any web,” but this is a mistake, for on examining its haunts, it will often be found occupying a thick domed web, and on being captured, it may be observed spinning a fine thread of gossamer. This venomous spider may sometimes be found on the leaves of the pouaka, and occasionally in the crevices of drift timber lying high and dry on the sea beach ; but its favourite resort is under the tufts of pingao (Desmoschenus spiralis), which grows in abundance on the sand dunes near the coast. On moving aside the long, overlapping leaves, the white web of the spider may be seen attached to the roots of the plant, and within or around it two or more of the venomous Katipo, the bright stripe on the back contrasting strongly with the black of the other parts. The Rev. Mr. Chapman records a case in which the bite of this spider proved fatal to a girl who was bitten in the region of the abdomen; and he mentions another case, of an English lad who was bitten on the fleshy part of the thigh, and ‘“‘ was three months before he rallied, and probably another three before he fuliy recovered.” (See Transactions, 1869, p. 82.) The natives on the west coast have assured me that among them, children have frequently 32 died from the effects of the bite. But in the generality of cases, and especially if the usual remedies are applied, the poisonous effects of the bite pass away in a few days, causing however much pain and lassitude while they last. The natives have several modes of treating a subject recently bitten, the most effectual one being to scarify the part and to bathe the patient in hot water. Another remedy in repute among them is to anoint the part affected with kokowat, or red ochre. This has the effect of reducing the swelling which almost immediately follows the bite, and alleviating the pain; and if the subject be robust and healthy no further inconvenience is likely to ensue. But if no such remedial measures are adopted, and the bite is neglected, very serious consequences may follow. According to the natives, the common symptoms are an aching pain in the part bitten, which soon becomes much swollen and inflamed ; then a copious sweat, and a feeling of intense languor and depres- sion of spirits. If not checked, this is followed by a convulsive contraction of the limbs, and the case then assumes a dangerous phase. During my residence at Manawatu, some years ago, the natives brought me word that a woman had been bitten by a Katipo. I at once placed the case in the hands of the Native Medical Officer of the district, Batten Smith, Esq., to whom I am indebted for the following interesting notes :— “ April 5, 1863. At 2 p.m. I was called to see a woman named Marara, about fifty years of age, and belonging to the Ngatiwhakatere tribe. It appears that yesterday, about noon, whilst digging potatoes at Wirokino (near the sea coast) she was bitten by a Katipo on the left hip. In a few minutes after, she complained of ‘pains all over her,’ which were followed in the space of two hours by cold shiverings, lasting only for a few minutes and returning at irregular intervals up to the time of my visit. Her husband had applied hot roasted potato to the seat of pain, though without alleviating it. She has always been a strong and healthy woman. I found the left hip slightly swollen and tender on pressure, but neither any noticeable shining blush nor heat of the skin; the tongue clean all over; pulse through, full and strong, reaching only to 75; neither vomiting nor headache, cramps in the muscles of the stomach nor sore throat. Countenance anxious, but not bloated ; pupils of the eyes natural, and not over sensitive to light. Pain great in both thighs, but greatest at the immediate seat of the bite, which had the same appear- ance as the prick of a needle or other fine instrument would produce. - No swelling of either legs or feet. “Treatment :—Solution of nitrate of silver 10 grains to 1 ounce of water, washed over the hip ; and she was given the following mixture,—Carbonate of ammonia 2 scruples, laudanum 40 drops, chloric ether $ drachm, peppermint water to 8 ounces. ‘Two table spoonfuls to be taken every second hour. “ At 9p.m. the rigors and pain having abated, she was given,—Hyd. Chlor. 3 grains, s.s., and Hst. Alb. 1 ounce, s. m. “April 6. Better, but tongue rather yellow. Repeated mixture with an increase of ammonia. . “April 7. Every bad symptom abated. “ April 8. Discharged well.” Dr. Wright, in describing a case within his own practice at Auckland, states that the patient, who was“a stout strong man, within an hour after being bitten by a Katipo, on attempting to eat, found that he could not open his mouth, or was scarcely able to articulate in consequence of stiffness about the jaws. The symptoms grew rapidly worse, and the patient became faint and almost pulseless. His extremities were cold and flaccid, his respiration almost ceased, and his two medical attendants had fears that he was about to expire. Spirits of ammonia were applied to the wound, which had the effect of reducing the swelling and abating the pain; ammonia and water, afterwards combined with brandy, were administered in considerable doses. Under this treatment the patient gradually improved, and in two hours was able to return home, but for several days after was unable to return to his work. Dr. Wright concludes that “from the symptoms of this case, the man was powerfully affected by a narcotic and irritating poison, which being absorbed into the circulation, affected the heart, brain, and nervous system to a very considerable extent, almost amounting to fatal syncope,—that the stimulants, by exciting the heart’s action, gradually aroused the excretory functions so as ultimately to remove the poison from the system.” Enough has been said to show that the bite of the Katipo, although seldom fatal, is very painful and distressing. It is important, therefore, that those whose avocations lead them to the sea shore, should be able to distinguish it readily from other spiders, and to know its haunts, so as to avoid them. I have satisfied myself that in common with many other venomous creatures, it only exerts its dreaded power as a means of defence, or when greatly irritated ; for I have observed that on being touched with the finger, it instantly folds its legs, rolls over on its back, and simulates death, remaining perfectly motionless till further molested, when it attempts to escape, only using its fangs as the dernier ressort. The cocoon, or nest of the Katipo, is perfectly spherical in shape, opaque, yellowish white, and composed of a silky web of very fine texture. The eggs are of the size of mustard seed, perfectly round, and of a transparent purplish red. They are agglutinated together in the form of a ball, and are placed in the centre of the cocoon, the exterior surface of which is sometimes encrusted with sand. The Katipo undergoes the following changes in its progress towards maturity. In the very young state, it has the body white with two linear series of connected black spots, and an intermediate line of pale red ; under parts brown ; legs light brown with black joints. In the next stage, the fore EF 34 ’ sides black with transverse marks of yellowish white; dorsal stripe bright red, commencing part of the body is yellow with two black “ eye-spots ;’ higher up than in the adult, and with the edges serrated ; thorax dark brown ; under parts black with an obscure spot of red ; legs yellowish brown, black at their joints. At a more advanced age, the stripe on the back is brighter and is narrowly bordered with yellow, and there are some obscure markings on the sides. Jn this condition the thorax and legs are nearly black. Adult Female.—Examples differ considerably in size, the body which is almost spherical, varying in development from the size of pigeon shot to that of a small green-pea. In the fully adult condition, this spider is a very handsome one, both in form and colour. In my largest specimens, the outspread legs, measuring across, cover a space of three-quarters of an inch. Thorax and body shining, satiny black. A stripe of bright orange-red passes down the centre of the body, the edges being tinged with yellow. At the anterior extremity, this stripe is broader and angular, and it is surmounted by an open, narrow mark of white in the form of a nail-head. Below this, and immediately above the junction of the thorax there are two divergent spots of orpiment yellow with white edges. Legs black, with the extremities inclining to brown. On the under surface there are two transverse spots of dark red. In some examples there is a dark line down the middle of the bright dorsal stripe, while in others the sides are ornamented with transverse marks of yellowish white. One of the specimens in my collection, more beautiful than the rest, has two triangular spots of yellow above the junction of the thorax, then two letter V marks with their angles joined, succeeded above by two similar but larger marks, their inner arms forming the nail-head which caps the bright dorsal stripe of red. Adult Male-—The male is considerably smaller than the female. Body shining blackish brown, with an obscure narrow line of yellow down the centre of the back, broader towards the posterior extremity, and a similar interrupted line on each side ; legs dark brown, with black joints. Art. VIII.—WNotes on the Genus Deinacrida in New Zealand. By Water Butter, F.L.S., F.G.S. (With Illustrations. ) [Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, November 12, 1870.] [A portion of the following notes on a curious group of New Zealand insects appeared in the Zoologist for August, 1867. It has been considered advisable to reprint the paper after revision by the author, who now adds the description of an additional species. —Ep. | "Y22 EL TP 72M. LONE RL AID) A ESN AE Later be (020 yroorcapen) ‘YSODIY KUIYOVNIIT (arene) “ennEr Y76HATOVOFW WOLSONITT @ (eens 2hyrepupy) eymeg ‘YSOINY KOIHOVNITA ‘CA WIE TE TOA “FLALUSNUZ'N SNVYL 35 1. Deinacrida heteracantha, White. (‘‘ Weta-punga” of the natives.) This fine species has a very limited geographical range. I have never heard of its occurrence south of the Waikato District, in the North Island. Formerly it was abundant in the forests north of Auckland ; but of late years it has become extremely rare. The natives attribute its extermination to the introduced Norway rat, which now infests every part of the country and devours almost everything that comes in its way. One of these insects, in the collection of the late Dr. Sinclair, measured, with its hind legs and antenne stretched out, fourteen inches; its head and body, exclusive of appendages, being two inches and a half. A specimen which I obtained in a pine forest, near the Kaipara River, more than thirteen years ago, and which is now deposited in the Auckland Museum, is even larger. The sexes differ con- siderably in size. The Weta-punga appears to subsist chiefly on the green leaves of trees and shrubs. It climbs with agility, and is sometimes found on the topmost branches of the kahikatea and other lofty trees, but more generally on the low under- wood of the forest. When disturbed it produces a clicking noise, accompanied by a slow alternate movement of its powerful hind legs. When taken it kicks or strikes backwards with these limbs, which are armed with double rows of sharp spurs; and, unless dexterously seized, will not fail to punish the offender's hand, the prick of its spurs causing an unpleasant stinging sensation. My brother-in-law, Major Mair, obtained some exceedingly fine examples of this insect in the Whangarei District. He found the killing of them, so as not to injure the specimens, a matter of some difficulty; and in one instance attempted to drown the insect in cold water, but found it after four days’ immersion as lively and active as ever. In another case, a large Weta-punga which he had immersed in water almost boiling, and then laid aside in his insect-box as killed, revived in the course of a few hours, and appeared to be quite unharmed! A pair which I captured in a low belt of wood near the Wairoa, and secured in a pocket handkerchief, had eaten their way out and escaped before my return to the spot where I had left them carefully suspended. 2. Deinacrida thoracica, Gray. ‘ Weta” of the natives.) This species is very common in the North Island. It infests decayed wood, and particularly the dry stems of the tutu (Coriaria ruscifolia) and the branches of Griselina lucida, into which it bores. During the night it may be heard emitting a peculiar snapping sound, especially when disturbed by the blaze of a camp fire in the woods. The male may be readily distinguished from the female by its large head and long powerful jaws. The ovipositor (in the female) is about half an inch 36 long, and is slightly recurved. This insect is preyed on by the koheperoa (Ludynamis taitensis), the kaka (Nestor meridionalis) and several other birds. 3. Deinacrida megacephala, Buller. (Zool., 1867, p. 852.) I bestowed this name on a new species, of which I had received several examples (of both sexes) from the woods in the neighbourhood of Wellington. The male of this species is characterized by a head and mandibles so large as to appear out of all proportion to the size of the body. (Figure 2, Plate V.b.) This exaggerated feature is wanting in the other sex, which, however, is distin- guishable from Deinacrida thoracica by sufficiently obvious specific characters. The tibize are considerably thicker, and more strongly armed with lateral spurs, although not longer than in the other species ; the thorax, which is ochreous- yellow marked with black in D. thoracica, is of uniform dark umber, narrowly margined with brown ; the head of this species is almost entirely black, and the body, instead of being pale brown, as in the other, is deep reddish brown with transverse bands of black. The femora are marked on each side with three series of minute black spots, which are more conspicuous in the male. The following are the measurements of the male :—Head and mandibles, one inch ; from anterior edge of thorax to end of abdomen one inch and three- sixteenths, the plate of the thorax measuring a quarter of an inch. The antenne are four inches long ; femur three-quarters of an inch; tibia one inch and three-sixteenths ; tarsus and claws three-eighths of an inch. The vertex is much rounded or elevated, and perfectly smooth. 4. Deinacrida rugosa, sp. noy. (Figs. 1 and 3, Plate V.b.) I propose this name for a species of which one example only (now deposited in the Colonial Museum) has yet been obtained. This species is intermediate in size between D. heteracantha and D. megacephala, and possesses very distinct characters. ‘The extreme length of the body is 1#inches, the thoracic shield measuring half an inch in length by three-quarters in width (following the curvature). Although a male specimen, the head is very small and rounded, measuring only half an inch in length, by three-eighths in width. The eyes are large and very prominent ; the antenne comparatively short, measuring scarcely four inches. Femur one inch; tibia one inch ; tarsus and claws, half aninch. The edges of the thoracic shield are raised, and the surface is deeply punctured and indented. The posterior edges of the dorsal plates are raised, and the lower ones have a fringe of hard papillee along their outer margin. All the plates are more or less punctured, and the whole surface presents a roughened appearance, which at once distinguishes the species from D. heteracantha, to which it more nearly approaches. Head, thorax, and body bright reddish brown, the edges of the plates darker ; 37 thoracic shield and two succeeding plates marked with black. Antenne and legs yellowish brown, the joints of the latter spotted with black. Under parts yellowish brown, darker on the edges of the abdominal segments. My specimen was obtained in the Wanganui District, and was found underground. Art. [X.— Further Notes on the Ornithology of New Zealand. By WALTER Butter, F.L.S., F.G.S., F.R.G.S. (With Illustrations. ) [Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, November 12, 1870.] In the Ornithological Notes which I had the honour on a former occasion to lay before the Society, I ventured to combat some of the views advanced by Dr. Otto Finsch, in regard to the characters and nomenclature of some of our New Zealand birds. That discussion, of which the present paper may be considered a continuation, was entered upon not in a spirit of controversy, but from a genuine desire on both sides to elicit the truth and to extricate the avifauna of this country from the confusion of nomenclature in which it had become involved. The critical experience which Dr. Finsch brought to bear on the subject, added to his very extensive knowledge of general ornithology, has proved of great value in determining hitherto little known or doubtful species. And I venture to believe that, owing to the advantage I possess as a local investigator, L also have been able to contribute in some degree to a better understanding of many of the species. To me, personally, the discussion so commenced has been of service, by bringing me into friendly and direct communication wlth one of the most learned of Continental ornithologists ; and in the last letter which I had the pleasure of receiving from him, Dr. Finsch frankly admits that my last paper has converted him on several points. For example,—that Anthornis auriocula is quite distinct from A. melanwra, that Rhipidura flabellifera is clearly separable from &. albiscapa of Australia, that Platacercus Fosteri (Finsch) is of very doubtful specific value, and that Von Pelzeln’s Anthornis ruficeps is merely a flower-stained example of A. melanwra. On the subject of those “new species” which he has proved to have been already known to science, he remarks,—“ I do not attack you in any way for publishing such species as new ; on the contrary, I am glad to find that there is a zealous man working in our sclence who endeavours himself to contribute towards a better know- ledge of the birds of that very interesting part of our globe. To a man engaged, as I have been, on ornithology for fifteen years, and working on the 38 greatest collections, it is in some cases easy to become convinced that a so-called new species has been published long ago elsewhere without having actually seen the type specimen. This has occurred to me often, not only with new species of others but with those published by myself.” And, with the candor of a true man of science, he adds,—‘“I am always glad and thankful to learn whether one of my species is really good or not, and I was pleased to learn from Mr, Blanford, that a lark which I had described as new had no specific value.” The following notes have reference not only to the species treated of in my former paper, but relate also to Dr. Finsch’s recently published account of the Parrots of New Zealand, as translated for the New Zealand Institute by Mr. R. L. Holmes. 1. HereraLocHa GouLpl, Gray. Dr. Finsch places this species in the family Meliphagide (Journ. fiir Orn., 1870, p. 247), but states no reason for so novel a classification. Till its affinities are better known it must remain where Mr. Gould originally placed it, among the Upupide. All that is at present known of this remarkable species will be found collected in a paper read before the Wellington Philo- sophical Society. (Vide ante, p. 24.) 2. ANTHORNIS AURIOCULA, Buller. Dr. Finsch, while admitting that this bird is distinct from Anthornis melanura, writes,—“ Had you given formerly the measurements of A. auriocula I never would have doubted this species, but now I must say I cannot see the exact difference between this bird and A. melanocephala, Gray ;” and in his recent paper on the Birds of New Zealand (Journ. fiir Orn., 1870, p. 250), he remarks that it coincides so fully with the latter as to warrant a supposition that they are identical, ““which appears more probable as both inhabit the Chatham Islands, a small group that can hardly be supposed to possess two species of such close resemblance.” I find no difficulty in pointing out characters that distinguish my bird from A. melanocephala, even more decidedly than from A. melanura. Anthornis melanocephala, according to Gray’s description, has the head steel black, and the neck, breast and upper tail coverts tinged with the same colour, and the wing coverts steel black margined with yellowish olive. In my Anthornis auriocula all these parts are of a uniform yellowish olive, there being merely a tinge of blue on the forehead as in the common species, A. melanura. In the former species the larger coverts, quills and tail feathers are blackish brown margined with paler or yellowish olive, whereas in my bird they are dusky brown. 39 3. ° ANTHORNIS RUFICEPS, Von Pelzeln. Regarding this species, Dr. Finsch says,—‘ You are quite right in respect to A. ruficeps. The red colour on the face is caused by external influences, for my friend, Von Pelzeln, has washed the type in the Vienna Museum, and the red tinge has partially disappeared. But, looking at the specimen, I was bound to take it as a good species, not knowing the singular manner of feeding.” While this appears to be a full confirmation of my view that the stains were caused by the flowers of Senecio cassinioides, or some other plant, I con- sider it only fair to my friend, Dr. Haast, who first discovered the supposed species, to give the following extract from one of his letters to me :—‘“Con- cerning A. ruficeps I may state, I am more than ever convinced that it is a good species, having an orange forehead and being smaller and thinner than A. melanura. I have been lately to Mount Cook, where the Senecio cassinioides is growing and in blossom, but all the birds had b/ue heads notwithstanding.” The only inference, however, as it appears to me, fairly deducible from this fact, is that the red stains are produced not by Senecio cassinioides, but by the flowers of some other plant, and this in no degree establishes the validity of the species. Dr. Finsch quotes a similar communication from Dr. Haast, dated March 26, 1870, but adds, “as this peculiarity of colouring, although only partly removed (in Von Pelzeln’s specimen), proved an artificial one, it may be inferred with considerable certainty that its existence was owing to accidental outward influences ; anyhow, the pollen with which these birds come in con- tact while seeking their food, contains colouring qualities producing a durable effect. Anthornis ruficeps ought therefore to be struck out of the list of New Zealand birds although Dr. Haast notes it as a genuine species of sub-alpine regions.” (Journ. fiir Orn., 1870, p. 250.) 4, ANTHORNIS MELANURA, Sparrm. As an instance of the mistakes into which the best closet naturalists almost inevitably fall when treating of a remote fauna, I may point out that Dr. Finsch enumerates Anthornis melanura, one of the commonest New Zea- land birds, among the species belonging exclusively to the Chatham Islands. (See Journ. fiir Orn., 1870, p. 243.) 5. XENIcuS Haastii, Buller. This species is acknowledged by Dr. Finsch to be a good one, but he suggests that it ought to be referred to the genus Certhiparus ; a view which I feel bound to reject. It possesses characters, however, which may entitle it to become the type of a new genus. Xenicus gilviventris, Pelz., is now added by Dr. Finsch to the list of species, although omitted in his former paper. 40 6. ORTHONYX OCHROCEPHALA, Finsch. In my former notes (Zrans. N. Z. Inst., 1868, p. 108), I objected to the separation of Mohoua ochrocephala and Certhiparus albicillus, asin Dr. Finsch’s list, and referred both species to the former genus. The practice of adopting local native names to designate new genera, appears to me objectionable, inasmuch as it causes confusion in the general nomenclature. The name “Moho” has been selected for a genus of honey- eating birds inhabiting the Sandwich Islands. In New Zealand this name is applied generally by the Maoris to various species of aquatic rails, belonging to no less than three distinct genera. On the other hand, the appellation of “ Mohoua” given by M. Lesson as the native name, and selected by him to distinguish the genus, has no existence in the Maori language, and its continued adoption would only perpetuate what is obviously a blunder. I therefore propose to restore the genus Orthonyx of Temminck, to which I can discover no tangible objection. And as I cannot see any valid reason why two species so closely allied both in structure and in habits should be separated generically, I have decided to refer both JMohoua ochrocephala, Gray, and Certhiparus albicillus, Lesson, to this genus.* 7. SPHENGACUS FULVUS, Gray. As the common species Sphenwacus punctatus is liable to some variation, both in size and plumage, I feel rather doubtful about the specific value of the bird described by Mr. G. R. Gray under the above name. A specimen in Dr. Hector’s collection, at Otago, which I had an opportunity of examining in 1865, and which I supposed to be referable to Gray’s S. fulvus, measured in length to end of tail 74 inches; wing from flexure 24; tail 4; tarsi #. The plumage generally was lighter and more fulvous than in ordinary speci- mens ; the tail feathers dark brown edged with paler ; bill, tarsi and toes very pale brown. Another specimen (minus the tail), in Mr. Lea’s collection, was very similar although somewhat darker. Whatever importance I might be inclined to attach even to trivial charac- ters when constant, I should hesitate to accord to these occasional examples the rank of a distinct species. * Since the above was written, I have received the July Heft of the Journal fiir Ornithologie, and am glad to find that Dr. Finsch has not only adopted my view as to the propriety of uniting Mohoua ochrocephala and Certhiparus albicillus generically, but has in fact anticipated me with regard to Orthonyx, by placing both species in that genus. It is gratifying to me to discover that, quite independently of each other, we have arrived at the same conclusion on so nice a point. 4] 8. GERYGONE ASSIMILIS, Buller. In my former notes in reply to Dr. Finsch’s paper in the /dzs, the following statement occurs :—‘‘I am not aware that I ever met with Gerygone assimilis in the South Island. At any rate, I demur to being held responsible for wrongly named specimens which I have never had an opportunity of iden- tifying.” Dr. Haast has since written, reminding me that in a collection of skins from Canterbury, forwarded to me for examination in 1866, there was one which I identified as the young of Gerygone assimilis. I take this oppor- tunity, therefore, of correcting a statement which implied that Dr. Haast was wrong in ascribing to this species a South Island range. At the same time it appears to me highly probable that Dr. Haast mistook the two birds. The specimen sent to me (which is still in my possession) is unquestionably a young bird, and although it is often difficult to distinguish between the young of closely allied species, I am still of opinion that it is referable to G. assimilis. The specimen which Dr. Haast forwarded to Germany, was “represented to be a female from Banks’ Peninsula.” Dy. Finsch, in noticing this specimen, states that it agrees in every respect with the description and figure of the true G. flaviventris, as given by Gray, except that the “yellowish growth on the under parts and tail coverts is weaker.” (Journ. fiir Orn., 1870, p. 254.) I perfectly agree with Dr. Finsch that such a bird is not separable from the old species; but the form which I propose to distinguish as G. assimilis is larger, and entirely free from the yellowish tinge on the under parts; and by Dr. Finsch’s own showing he has never seen it. Having examined a large number of their nests in various parts of the coun- try, | found that, while they invariably exhibited the pensile character, they were as a rule referable to one or the other of two distinct types—the bottle-shaped nest with the porch or vestibule, and the pear-shaped form without the porch. This peculiarity coupled with the significant fact that in some instances the eggs were pure white, in others speckled or spotted with red, led me first to suspect the existence of two distinct but closely allied species, and the ascertained differ- ence in size and colour which I have already indicated strengthened that view. In my Essay on New Zealand Ornithology, 1865 (p. 9), I described the two forms of nests, and proposed to distinguish the builder of the larger pear-shaped nest as G. assimilis. Although still of opinion that such a distinction is warranted, I am free to admit that the subject requires further investigation. My esteemed friend, Captain Hutton writes me :—‘“ TI have lately seen several good examples of the porch in the Riroriro’s nest, but I think it easy to collect a series from no porch to the most developed, and it seems to me to be due more to accidental circumstances than to specific difference.” It will be observed, however, that my correspondent does not appear to have actually found such a series, while in a former letter he states that although he had G 42 examined a great many specimens, he had never yet met with the porch-like contrivance, and in an article recently contributed to the /bis (July, 1870, p. 393), he remarks, —‘‘I have never seen the porch described by Mr. Buller in his Hssay.” Mr. Potts, in his interesting paper on the nests and eggs of New Zealand birds (Zrans. N. Z. Inst., 1869, p. 50), states that this species usually lays six eges ; but, so far as my experience goes, four is the normal number, although there are sometimes more. They differ somewhat in size, and vary in shape from the true ovoiconical to a slightly pyriform type. They are sometimes pure white, but more generally freckled with pale red, and are so fragile in texture as to bear only the most delicate handling. Mr. Potts accounts for the occurrence of white eggs on the supposition that they are the product of young birds; but Iam more disposed to consider this, taken in connection with the slight difference in form and size, as further indicative of the exist- ence of two distinct species. Among the substances used as building materials by this bird, spiders’ nests are always conspicuous ; indeed, in some specimens the whole exterior surface is covered with them. The particular web chosen for this purpose is an adhesive cocoon of loose texture and of a dull green colour. These spiders’ nests contain a cluster of flesh-coloured eggs, or young, and in tearing them off the bird necessarily exposes the contents, which it eagerly devours. Thus, while engaged in collecting the requisite building material, it finds also a plentiful supply of food—an economy of time and labour very necessary to a bird that requires to build a nest fully ten times its own size, and to rear a foster-brood of hungry cuckoos in addition to its own. 9, PrrroicA DIEFFENBACHII, Gray. In characterizing the above species (Voy. Ereb. and Terr., Birds, p. 6), Mr. Gray states that it is “very like Petroica macrocephala, but is altogether smaller in size, and with the small and narrow bill of P. toitot.” Petroica toitot is confined in its range to the North Island, where it is very common. It may readily be distinguished from the other species by the pure whiteness of its under parts. The South Island is the habitat of P. macrocephala, and Auckland Island is included in its range on the authority of Mr. G. R. Gray. I obtained specimens at the Chatham Islands during a visit there in 1855, but I have failed to detect any such difference in examples from that locality as would justify the recognition of a distinct species, as proposed by Mr. Gray. I think it will be found necessary to expunge Petroica Dieffenbachii from the list of species, for I do not believe that it has any real existence. 43 10. CaALtL#As oLIvAscens, Pelzeln. I cannot admit Herr von Pelzeln’s bird described under the above name (Trans. Zool. Bot. Soc., 1867, p. 317), to be a good species. The description is founded on a specimen collected at Auckland by Mr. Zelebor, and the diag- nostic characters which distinguish it from C. cinerea, ave the brownish olive colour of the back, wings and tail, the greyish olive of the under parts, its greater size, and the “dusky colour of the mouth caruncles.” The dusky black colour of the wattles is worthless as a distinguishing feature, for these fleshy appendages, which are of a brilliant blue in the living bird, fade in death and entirely change colour in the dried specimen, becoming almost black. The sexes vary in size, and the peculiarity of coloration to which Von Pelzeln attaches specific value is characteristic of the female. 1]. Puarycercus Nov# ZELANDI#, Sparrm. Our worthy President, the Hon. Mr. Mantell, in his Anniversary Address, refers to “the lamentable confusion inseparable from the attempt to determine species from the dried and distorted specimens in antipodean museums.” A striking instance of this is afforded in the number of “species” which stuffed examples of our common little Parrakeet (Platycercus Nove Zelandic) have been made to represent. The type of Mr. Gray’s Platycercus Cooki, in the British Museum, is described as not distinguishable from ordinary specimens of Platycercus Nove Zelandie, except that the red ear spots are rather faint, while the beak is a little stronger and blacker towards the point. Dr. Finsch states “that this distinction in the colour of the beak was taken by Gray as the chief ground for separating the species,” and adds, that in another example of the so-called Pl. Cooki, in the Heine Museum, “the beak exhibits the usual colour.” An unusually small example of this bird was characterized by Prince C. L. Bonaparte as Pl. Aucklandicus. Another example, presenting some slight differences in the details of its colouring, was described by Verreaux as PJ. Saisetti ; and another, of a lighter green plumage than ordinary specimens, became Pl. erythrotis. Platycercus Rayneri, Gray, founded on a single specimen in the British Museum, does not differ at all in colour from the typical species, the only distinction being the ‘‘ wider tail feathers.” Dr. Finsch, after enumerating a large series of specimens that had come under his inspection, very properly concludes :—“ It appears to me impossible to make more than one well-defined species out of all the above.” But at the same time, Dr. Finsch (with some apparent 1eluctance) raises Forster’s bird to the rank of a distinct species, P/. Yorsteri, simply because of the accidental absence of the red thigh-spots. He observes, “Gray unites, improperly, this 44 bird with his Pl. Aucklandicus, although it is quite a distinct species.” On the contrary, I think there is little room to doubt that both of the so-called species ought to be united to Pl. Nove Zelandic. Dr. Finsch’s supposition that Platycercus unicolor, Vigors, in which the frontal spot is wanting, may be the young state of Pl. Nove Zelandic is certainly incorrect ; but as the specimen in the British Museum, on which the description is founded, is acknowledged to be ‘the only one known,” I have not the least doubt that it is merely an accidental variety of the common species. Like many other members of the large natural family to which it belongs, this species exhibits a strong tendency to variability of colour, and the slight differences which some of the ornithologists of Europe have recognized as sufficient specific characters, are of no value whatever. Asa proof of this, I may here notice four remarkable examples that have come within my own knowledge in this country. (1.) A specimen of Platycercus Novee Zelandie brought to me by a native, in the Kaipara District, many years ago, had the whole of the plumage of a brilliant scarlet red. (2.) A specimen obtained in the woods in the neighbourhood of Wellington, had the green plumage thickly studded all over with spots of red. This hand- some bird was caged, and at the first moult the whole of the spots disappeared. (3.) A young bird, brought to me from the nest, and not fully fledged, had _the plumage of the body pale yellow, shaded with green on the upper parts, and the quills and tail feathers marked with red. (4.) In the summer of 1863, I obtained a very beautiful variety of the common Platycercus auriceps, at Manawatu. I found it in the hands of a labouring settler, who had purchased it from the natives for something less than a shilling. Finding him unwilling to part with it, I tempted him witha guinea, and secured the prize. It was a bird of the first year, and presented the following appearance :—Frontal band crimson, vertex golden yellow ; space around the eyes and a band encircling the neck green ; head, shoulders and lower part of back red, the intermediate space variegated with red and green ; quills dusky, obscurely banded with yellow, and margined on the outer vane with blue; wing coverts greenish yellow, barred and margined with red; tail feathers green, obscurely barred with yellow in their apical portion. Under parts green variegated with crimson and yellow, an interrupted band of the former colour crossing the breast. Like the spotted variety already mentioned, within a short time it commenced to moult, and was fast assuming the common green livery of the species, when it was accidentally killed. This specimen, which still exhibits traces of its original colours, belongs now to the type collection of the Colonial Museum. I think I may venture to assert, that had any one of these “occasional 45 varieties” found its way into the National Collection of Great Britain, or into one of the great continental museums, it would have been honoured with all the distinctions of a good and true species ! 12. NESTOR MERIDIONALIS, Gmelin. Dr. Finsch describes in graphic terms the delight with which he gazed upon a live Kaka (Nestor meridionalis), in the Zoological Society’s Gardens, London, and speculates on the speedy extinction of the species ; and Mr. Gould, in the Appendix to his Hand-book to the Birds of Australia (p. 549), expresses a hope that some of the residents of New Zealand will “study and record the habits and economy of this bird before it be extirpated, and its name and a few stuffed skins alone left as an evidence of its once having existed.” Although it cannot be denied that the Kaka is less common than it formerly was, it still exists in very considerable numbers in various parts of the country, and there-.is no present danger of the species becoming extinct. In the months of December and January, when the rata (Metrosideros robusta) is in flower, thousands of these birds are trapped by the natives, and preserved in their own fat for winter use. Partly owing to this cause, and partly to the extension of settlement, it is true that in some districts where in former years they were excessively abundant, their cry is now seldom or never heard ; but in the wooded districts of the interior they are as plentiful as ever. The cause of the rapid disappearance in these Islands of some species of birds, and absolute extinction of others, is a very interesting question. In a newly-colonized country, where the old fauna and flora are being invaded by a host of foreign immigrants, various natural agencies are brought into play to check the progress of the indigenous species, and to supplant them by new and more enduring forms, more especially in the case of insular areas of compara- tively small extent. These agencies are often too subtle in their operation to arrest the notice of the ordinary observer, and it is only the ultimate results that command his attention and wonder. But in New Zealand some special cause, apart from this general law, must be assigned for the alarmingly rapid decrease of many of the indigenous birds. In the course of a very few years, species, formerly common in every grove, have become so scarce throughout the country as to threaten their extinction at no very distant date. Various reasons have been suggested to account for this. The natives believe that the imported bee, which has become naturalized in the woods, is displacing the kaka, tui, and other honey-eating birds. One of the oldest settlers in the Hokianga District (Judge Maning), speaking to me on this subject said,—‘“ I remember the time, not very long ago, when the Maori lads would come out of the woods with hundreds of korimakos hung around them in strings, now one scarcely ever hears the bird; formerly they swarmed in the northern woods by thousands, now they are well-nigh extinct.” On 46 asking him his opinion as to the cause of this, he told me that he agreed with the Maoris, that the bee having taken possession of the woods, has driven the honey-eating birds away from the flowers, and practically starved them out ; and he referred to the scarcity of the tui, another honey-eater, in support of this view.* But it must be remembered that both of these species subsist largely on berries and insects, and that the comparative failure of their honey food, even if granted, will not of itself account for the rapid decrease of these birds ; while, on the other hand, the totoara (Petroica albifrons), and other species which do not sip flowers, are becoming equally scarce. It appears to me that the honey-bee theory is quite insufficient to meet the case, and that we must look further for the real cause. As the result of long observation, I have come to the conclusion that hitherto the chief agent in this rapid des- truction of certain species of native birds has been the introduced rat. This cosmopolitan pest swarms through every part of the country, and nothing escapes its voracity. It is very abundant in all our woods, and the wonder rather is that any of our insessorial birds are able to rear their broods in safety. Species that nest in hollow trees, or in other situations accessible to the ravages of this little thief, are found to be decreasing, while other species whose nests are, as a rule, more favourably placed, continue to exist in undiminished numbers. As examples of this latter class, I may instance the kingfisher, which usually scoops out a hole for its nest in the upright bole of a dead tree, quite beyond the reach of rats, and appears to be more abundant now than ever ; also the Rhipidura, Zosterops, Gerygone, and other small birds whose delicate nests are secured to slender twigs, or suspended among vines and creepers. And the ground lark, again, which nests in open grass or fern land, where the brown hawk (Circus Gouldi) keeps the rat well under control, has of late years sensibly increased being now very common. As a matter of fact, I have known a case in which half a dozen nests of the tui, within a radius of a hundred yards, were robbed by rats of both eggs and young. In a letter which I had the pleasure of receiving from the Rev. T. Chapman, of Rotorua, some years ago, that gentleman states,—“ Wild ducks were par- ticularly numerous in this district on my arrival here: you saw them by dozens, —you hardly see them now by twos. Ihave no doubt we owe this to the Nor- way rat. There is a place on the Waikato River, some twenty miles below * The following remark occurs in Mr. Travers’ interesting lecture, ‘‘On the Changes effected in the Natural Features of a New Country by the Introduction of Civilized Races :’—‘‘The kiore has been replaced, if not destroyed, by the European rat; the European honey-bee now swarms in our forests, taking the food of the meliphagous birds, which are already diminishing palpably in numbers, whilst the facility afforded by the immense epiphytical growth upon the forest trees enables the rat also to aid in this destruction by devouring the eggs and young birds.” —Trans. NV. Z. Inst., Vol. ii., p. 312. 47 Taupo, where the chiefs occasionally assembled to act out two important matters,—to discuss politics and eat kouras (cray-fish). A few years after the Norway rat fully appeared, the kouras were no longer plentiful, and as the New Testament made Maori politics rather unnecessary, the usage of meeting no longer exists. The natives assured me that the Norway rat caught the cray-fish by diving. Rowing up the rivers you see little deposits of shells. Upon enquiry I found they were the selections of the Norway rat, who, by diving for these fresh-water pipis, provide a kinaki (relish) for their vegetable suppers.” In writing of the Nestor hypopolius { = Nestor meridionalis), Gould remarks,—‘“‘ A very great dissimilarity, both in size and colouring, occurs in oO? different examples of this species, so much so as to induce a belief, both in my own mind and in that of others, that they may constitute two species. * * * Tt will be a question for the colonists to determine if there be more than a single species, or if the differences seen in the skins sent to Europe are indica- tions only of local varieties, and to what cause they may be due.” In my former notes (Zrans. NV. Z. Inst., Vol. ii., p. 387), I stated that IT had forwarded to Europe, for examination, specimens of a larger Nestor from the Middle Island, which differed considerably from the typical WVestor meridionalis. Mr. G. R. Gray, to whom I sent the skins, submitted them to Dr. Finsch for identification, and-this naturalist refers to them in the Journal fiir Ornithologie, 1870, under the name of “ Buller’s Nestor mon- tanus ;” but this is a mistake, as I have never ventured to assign, or even to suggest, a specific name for this bird, although in writing to Mr. Gray I pointed out differences that might be deemed of specific value. In a letter to myself (under date July 13), Dr. Finsch observes,—“ Mr. Gray sent me for examination the two Nestors [large and small] sent by you. I have inspected both with the greatest care, but I am not able to distinguish them as different species. In comparing only these two specimens, no one would hesitate to take them as distinct, but I have seen so many specimens of this WVestor that I would not be at all astonished to see examples differing even more than these. A specimen from the low-lands, sent by Dr. Haast, is quite inseparable from your Alpine Vestor. A general variation seems to be the rule in the genus Nestor. Scarcely two specimens are precisely and in every respect alike. This is not only the case with your common species, but also with the rare Nestor productus.” I fully admit the great variability of colour in specimens of Vestor meridio- nalis, and have myself directed attention to it (vide Essay on New Zealand Ornithology, p. 11); but this is a question, not merely of colour, but of two distinct races, a larger and a smaller, and both confined to separate geographic areas. It appears to me that it is not of the least consequence to science whether 48 Dr. Finsch and I can agree to consider them good and true species, or merely local varieties of Nestor meridionalis, so long as they can be sufficiently dis- tinguished. On no subject, probably, are the views of modern zoologists more divided, than on the question of what constitutes a species and what a variety. The definition of the term “species” is, after all, purely arbitrary, and is determined in a great measure by the individual opinion of every naturalist. Extreme views are held on both sides, one class of naturalists contending that it matters not how small the difference is between two allied species, provided it be constant, while there is a growing tendency among another class to group together a large number of slightly different species, usually considered dis- tinct, as merely local or climatic varieties of one typical form. ‘ Between these opposite views,” to quote from a high authority, “there is certainly ample room for every shade of opinion. Every naturalist, indeed, has his own views on the matter. The fact is, that the amount of difference requisite to establish specific distinctness between two sets of individuals is, as has been well main- tained by an eminent writer whose views are adverse to the real existence of species, a matter of opinion, and we should therefore be very careful in blaming writers whose ideas on this point may be at variance with our own.” Of the two classes of “lumpers and splitters,” as they have been respec- tively termed, numerous examples might be given from the ranks of the best ornithologists. As an instance of the former, however, I may mention that Dr. Finsch has united, under Conurus pertinax, the species named OC. eruginosus, C. chrisogenys, C. xantholemus, C. ocularis, and C. chrysophrys. (Papagien, Vol.i., p. 506). It is not for me to say that a naturalist of Dr. Finsch’s experience is wrong in this decision ; but we have it, on the authority of Mr. Sclater, Secretary to the Zoological Society, that two of these forms, Conurus santholemus and C. chrysophrys, ‘living side by side in the Society’s gardens, are very distinct species and certainly not to be confounded together,” (Proc. Zool. Soc., 1867, p. 588.) “Many years ago,” says Mr. Darwin, “when comparing and seeing others compare, the birds from the closely neighbouring islands of the Galapagos Archipelago, both one with another, and with those from the American main- land, J was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties. * * * Even Iveland has a few animals, now generally regarded as varieties, but which have been ranked as species by some zoologists. Several most experienced ornithologists consider our British red grouse as only a strongly marked race of a Norwegian species, whereas the greater number rank it as an undoubted species peculiar to Great Britain.” He further states that few well marked and well known varieties can be named which have not been ranked as species by at least some competent judges, and he summarises thus :—‘“ Certainly no clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn between species and sub-species—that is, the forms which in the opinion 49 of some naturalists come very near to, but do not quite arrive at, the rank of species ; or, again, between sub-species and well marked varieties, or between lesser varieties and individual differences.”* Mr. Sclater, in his review of Gould’s Monograph of the Trochilide, observes, —‘“ We have never been able to draw the line between a species and a climatic variety, nor do we believe it is possible so to do. We therefore do not complain of Mr. Gould having given specific names to certain local forms, if it can be shown that they are invariably distinguishable by constant charac- ters."f And another well known naturalist, Mr. A. R. Wallace, in writing on the Pigeons of the Malay Archipelago says,—‘“ A permanent local variety is an absurdity and a contradiction, and if we once admit it, we make species a matter of pure opinion, and shut the door to all uniformity of nomenclature ;” and he holds that where the difference, however trivial, is constant, the so-called varieties must be regarded as distinct species. Practically, as it seems to me, it matters little whether these closely allied forms be characterized as species, races, or varieties, the true object of all nomenclature being to aid the student in the systematic arrangement of all existing organisms according to their natural affinities. But the too common practice of confounding well marked local forms on the mere supposition of specific identity, without actual examination and comparison, is a positive injury to the cause of science, and cannot be too strongly condemned. It is not only fatal to scientific accuracy, but renders it almost hopeless to arrive at correct conclusions on the geographical distribution of species, a subject of the highest interest to the philosophical naturalist. 13. Nestor Essiryei, De Souancé. What is Vestor ELsslingit ? asks one of my correspondents. The question, though simple enough in itself, is not easily answered. The only specimen extant, so far as I am aware, is the one in the British Museum (which I have never had an opportunity of examining), and the several accounts given of the bird by those who profess to describe it, are so much at variance that local naturalists may well acknowledge themselves at fault respecting it. M. de Souancé, the original describer of the species, says :— “Te Nestor dont nous allons donner la description est, sans contredit, Voiseau le plus remarquable de la collection Masséna. Intermédiaire entre le NV. hypopolius et le NV. productus, ce magnifique Perroquet réunit, dans son plumage, des détails caractéristiques de ces deux espéces. Coloration générale semblable & celle du WV. hypopolius.” Mr. Gould, in the Supplement to his Hand-book to the Birds of Australia, says of this species,—“ A single specimen only of this magnificent Parrot has * Origin of Species, p. 60. + bis, 1862, p. 73. 50 come under my notice ; and this example is perhaps the only one that has yet been sent to Europe. It formerly formed part of the collection of the Prince D’Kssling, of Paris, but now graces the National Museum of Great Britain. Tt is in a most perfect state of preservation, and is without exception one of the finest species, not only of its genus, but of the great family of parrots. The native country of this species is supposed to be New Zealand ; but I, as well as M. de Souancé, have failed to learn anything definite on this point. In size it even exceeds the great kaka (Nestor hypopolius), which it resembles in the form of its beak, while in its general colouring it closely assimilates to Nestor productus.” Dr. Finsch, on the other hand, states in his Monograph, that Nestor Esslingi, De Souancé (of which the type is in the British Museum), is in size and general colour the same as Westor meridionalis, but has the breast ash grey with brown terminal margins, and a broad yellowish white transverse band straight across the belly. Further on he speaks of both the original specimens from the Massena Col- lection being in the British Museum, and states that “they appear to be the only ones known.” He adds, that he was not able to make such an examination of them as he wished, owing to their being in hermetically closed glass cases, but quotes Souancé, to the effect that the red marks on the inner vane of the quills and tail feathers are precisely as in Nestor meridionalis ; whereas Mr. Gould dis- tinctly says that while the tail feathers in NV. meridionalis and N. productus are strongly toothed on the under surface with red, “in Nestor Hsslingw no such marks occur, the toothing on the inner webs of the primaries is not so clear and well-defined, and the light coloured interspaces are more freckled with brown.” As stated by Mr. Gould, there is no certainty about the type specimen of M. de Souancé having come from New Zealand. Dr. Finsch, however, regards it positively as a New Zealand species, and cites Dr. Haast as his authority. ‘No traveller (he observes) speaks of this rare bird, and only from a remark of Dr. Haast’s does it appear that it really still exists. He says, in his interesting treatise on the kakapo (ver Handel des Kaiserl, Zool. Bot. Ver. Zer Wien., 1863, p. 116),—Westor Lsslingii is still to be seen in the forest districts, living on the berries of the numerous Alpine shrubs and on the roots of Alpine herbs,—the only remark we possess about the species.” But Dr. Haast has since written to me, asking what Nestor LHsslingii is, and I gather from his correspondence that he mistook another bird (the large Alpine Nestor, which Dr. Finsch considers a mere variety of WV. meridionalis) for the true Nestor Esslingw. There is, consequently, no positive authority for con- sidering this a New Zealand species. Not having access to the type specimen, and left in utter confusion as to its real characters by the discrepancies to which I have adverted, it is impossible for a local naturalist to hold any decided opinion respecting it. But assuming dl - Dr. Finsch’s description to be strictly correct,—that it most nearly resembles Nestor meridionalis, from which it is only distinguishable by the broad yellowish white band across the under parts of the body, and considering the extreme tendency in that species to variability of colour, I should be inclined to regard the British Museum bird as an accidental variety of the common Kaka. Among the numerous abnormally coloured examples which I have seen, from time to time, varying from an almost pure albino to a rich variegated scarlet, I remember one which, although like the common bird in its general plumage, had a broad longitudinal band of yellowish white on the abdomen. The specific identity of this specimen with Mestor meridionalis was unmistakable. 14. Nzstor supERBUS, Buller. Diagnosis. —Latere inferiore, capitis lateribus, torque nuche, tergo caudzeque tectricibus et superioribus et inferioribus puniceis ; pileo, pectore, humeris alarumque tectricibus superioribus flavis; alis albido-flavis ; cauda cinereo-flava. Dr. Finsch’s remark that my Westor superbus approaches nearest in colour to V. Esslingti and N. productus, does not tend to diminish the confusion which already exists. As we have already seen, this author makes the yellow bellyband almost the only distinguishing feature between WV. Hsslingit and N. meridionalis, Gould gives the following description of the Phillip Island bird (Westor productus) ——General colour of the upper surface brown ; head and back of the neck tinged with grey, the feathers of these parts, as well as of the back, margined with a deeper tint ; rump, belly, and under tail coverts deep red; cheeks, throat, and chest yellow, the former tinged with red ; shoulders, on their inner surface, yellow tinged with rufous olive ; tail feathers banded at the base with orange-yellow and brown ; the inner webs of the quill- feathers at the base and beneath with dusky red and brown ; irides very dark brown; bill brown ; nostrils, bare skin round the eye, and the feet dark olive-brown. A glance at the diagnostic characters above (as quoted by Dr. Finsch) will show that my Nestor swperbus is a very differently coloured bird to either of these species. 15. NESTOR OCCIDENTALIS, Buller. Dr. Finsch disallowed this species, on the supposition that it was the large Alpine Nestor from the South, which he pronounces a mere variety of Nestor meridionalis. This surmise was a mistake ; but, in a letter to me, he states that he is still inclined to believe that WV. occidentalis is only another “ variety ” of the common species. Or bo 16. Nestor NoTABILIS, Gould. This fine species is not quite so scarce as Dr. Finsch supposes. In referring to the two examples sent home by Mr. Mantell (the first pair received in Europe), he observes that they may be regarded “as the last of this extinct, or very nearly extinct, species ;’ but further on he mentions, on the authority of a private letter, the arrival of two specimens at the Vienna Museum. As this bird inhabits the slopes of the Southern Alps, and is driven down tv the plains only during very severe winters, it is not frequently met with ; but explorers, like Dr. Haast, who have visited its Alpine haunts, report it comparatively common. = ine El eat Ay,