et Tee r t 4 t # yw U8 gh gta } ! Tel : MOUntview 2831 WITH THE COMPLIMENTS OF STANLEY NOBLE University Bookseller 24 Gladwell Road, London, N.8. Whenever, bat BP PEPE IE UVES OF 25 Pee eth Beart yee = y Cop A pee Dar ty DAHLE SS S Se ae SUPPLEMENT TO) TE ‘BIRDS OF NEW ZEALAND.’ BY Sirk WALTER LAWRY BULLER, K.C.M.G., ELR.S.) Fad. ©. SEAS. Hon. Sc.D. (Cambridge, and Tiibingen) ; KNIGHT COMMANDER OF THE CROWN OF ITALY; OFFICER OF THE LEGION OF HONOUR; ‘OFFICIER DE L’INSTRUCTION PUBLIQUE’ DE LA FRANCE; KNIGHT (FIRST CLASS) OF THE ORDERS OF FRANCIS JOSEPH OF AUSTRIA, FREDERICK OF WURTEMBERG, AND PHILIP THE MAGNANIMOUS OF HESSE-DARMSTADT 3 GALILEIAN MEDALLIST OF THE FACULTY OF NATURAL SCIENCES, ROYAL UNIVERSITY, FLORENCE ; AND NEW-ZEALAND-EXHIBITION GOLD MEDALLIST FOR ‘LITERATURE AND SCIENCE,’ &c., &e., &e. VOLUME IL LONDON: PUBLISHED (FOR TEES UBS Cis Hiss) 4b THE AUTHOR, so LONDON selliles ac) 1905. Se Se Ny S ATiona muse“ Medication. THIS SUPPLEMENT NO} WNSuB) ‘BIRDS OF NEW ZEALAND’ A affectionately Dedigate EO ie Ds Gael niiky LAURA (Now THE WiFE OF Brevet-Masor W. R. N. Mavocks, Royat Frenp ARTILLERY), WHO WAS MY CONSTANT COMPANION DURING ITS PREPARATION, AND HAS CONTRIBUTED SOME BEAUTIFUL PHOTOGRAPHS OF NEW ZEALAND SCENERY TO ITS PAGHS. a ie aia nas LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. VOGT: FRONTISPIECE: Portrait of the Author. COLOURED. Pints Oo PuateE I. Haast’s Kiwi (Apteryx haasti). $25 , I. Southern Megapode (Megapodius ana ) amdiremiek: } Sf ESI tetra toms evar lee Oaltie modestus ). , IV. Sunday-Island Petrel (strelata cervicalis). » . Heads of Albatroses (Diomedea bulleri and D. salvini). 4 TEXT TLLUSTRATIONS. INTRODUCTION, page XXI The Huia, male and female. XXV Dromedea salvini, nesting on the Bounty Islands. XLV In Pember Bay, showing stakes for Duck decoys. XLV The Kiwi preserve in Papaitonga Lake. XLVI Papawharang? Islet, of artificial construction. XLVII In the Papaitonga Bush-reserve. XLVIII Otomuri: a noted Kaka resort in former times. XLIX Papaitonga Lake, with Maori Group. L General view of Papaitonga Lake, from the old Maori war-path. 9) 9) 9) ?) 5 Kiwis on their feeding ground. 9 Foot of Apteryx lawryt, 2, natural size. 10 Head of Apteryx lawryi, 2, natural size. TEXT, page 9 33 v1 ILLUSTRATIONS. Page 16 Maori Girl in Kiwi robe. | 5 22 Apteryx owen feeding (in two positions). | » 46 Gallinula nesiotis: by Keulemans. 5 O24 ‘The Buller River, N.Z.; the home of Ocydromus earli. 5 62 The Wood-hen’s nest. 7 | 5 (4 Head of Notornis manteli—two aspects. » (¢ Papaitonga Lake: western arm. , Sl King Penguin hatching its ege. » 8% Colony of Catarrhactes pachyrhynchus on the Snares Islands. , 89 ‘Two heads of Catarrhactes pachyrhynchus. , 123 Prion vittatus and Prion desolatus. ,, 124 Prion brevirostris and Prion desolatus. Four diagrams illustrating the flight of the Albatros. , 143 The Royal Albatros: adult and young. , 145 Royal Albatros on her nest. 152 Diomedea bullert, Rothschild. , 167 Larus scopulinus following shoal of fish. TYPOGRAPHICAL CORRECTIONS. The caption, page 97: for Fammny PUFFINIDZ read Faminy PROCELLARIIDA. pages 112 and 120: for Famiry PROCHELLARIIDA read Faminy PUFFINIDA. page 172: for Famiry STERCORARIIDA read Faminy CHARADRIIDAL. 99 93 re) 9? PREFACE. SEVENTEEN years have now elapsed since the publication of my Second Edition of the ‘Birds of New Zealand.’ During that period several new and interesting species have been discovered, a number of wanderers or stragelers, from Australia and elsewhere, have been detected on our shores, and much detailed information, more or less important, has been obtained respecting most, if not all, of the species described in that work. I have thought it better, instead of bringing out a new edition of so expensive a book, to issue a Supplement of two volumes, conforming in their style and appearance to the original Vols. I. and I1., in which all this new material will be embodied, and coloured illustrations given of species not figured in the former volumes. I have taken this opportunity of re- classifying the avifauna of New Zealand according to the most modern system of arrange- ment, namely that adopted by Dr. Bowdler Sharpe in his recently published ‘ Handlist of Birds’; so that, although in the nature of a ‘Supplement’ forming, as it were, a necessary acquisition for those who possess my former work, the present publication is virtually complete in itself, embracing all the known species. I am aware that Dr. Sharpe’s system, which reverses the old sequence and com- mences with the lowest instead of the highest forms, has challenged much criticism ; but the fact remains that it has been adopted by the Trustees of our National Collec- tion as the best that can be devised, whilst it seems to have met with general acceptance on the Continent. All systems are confessedly artificial, and they must in a sense be provisional, whilst our knowledge of the Science is advancing towards perfection; but, for my own part, I attach so much importance to securing uniformity that, in my opinion, this is enough to outweigh all other considerations. It is to be hoped that we have now reached something like finality in the nomenclature of the birds of New Zealand, which has undergone many violent changes since the publication of my fir.t edition in 1873. In the placing of the genera, and of the species, as far as possible, the sequence followed is that of the ‘ Handlist.’ As with the First and Second Editions, so with the present work, I have had the advantage of Mr. Keulemans’ unrivalled pencil. Those who are familiar with the life-work of that talented artist will, I think, admit that he has never produced more beautiful or life-like Bird-pictures than those which appear in the present volumes. And I feel that I cannot give too much praise to my printers, Messrs. John Bale, Sons and Danielsson, Limited, for the manner in which they have carried out their work, including also the production of the numerous process-blocks in their Art Department, and the printing of the plates, for hand-colour- ing. Lastly, my thanks are due to my excellent correspondents in New Zealand who have kept me posted in everything of interest relating to the native birds. London, March, 1905. INTRODUCTION, IN my General Introduction (vol. i., pp. xviii. to viii.) I have dealt so fully with the distinguish- ing features of the New Zealand Ornis that I do not propose to do more now than to offer some remarks and observations suggested by a general purview of the subject, and principally in relation to certain facts and inferences that appear to me to bear directly on the great doctrine of the evolution of species by a natural process of descent with modification—that is to say, the ever-operating law of natural selection by variation and the survival of the fittest. The views which I shall here elaborate have already appeared in my paper entitled ‘ Illustrations of Darwin- ism” ( Trans. N.Z. Inst.,’ 1895, vol, xxvii., pp. 75-104), and I take this opportunity of revising and amplifying them, so as to bring them oan to date. The ornithology of New Zealand, apart from its intrinsic interest, presents to the thoughtful naturalist several aspects of great philosophical significance. Not the least of these is that of the many peculiar forms which it contains, and their local distribution, because of the remarkable evidence hereby furnished in support of the now generally accepted Darwinian theory of the creation of species in the organic world—that is to say, by a natural and gradual modification of character, due to the survival of the fittest in the universal struggle for existence. The principle of natural selection is expressed by Darwin himself as that of “the preserva- tion during the battle of life of varieties which possess any advantages in structure, constitution, or instinct.” He says, and with great force: “In scientific investigations it is permitted to * This paper, reprinted in pamphlet form, was sent to Sir Joseph Hooker, amongst other scientific friends, and. I had the pleasure of receiving the following letter of acknowledgment from that distinguished naturalist :— ‘(My DEAR BULLER, ‘¢ Yesterday I received yours of 10th May [1895], and this morning your ‘ Illustrations of Darwinism.’ Such is my avidity for anything relating to the natural history of New Zealand that I read your papers through at once and with very great pleasure. They reminded one of ‘ White’s Selborne’ and interested me exceedingly. I go along with you throughout the Darwinism ELSES att especially with regard to so-called degraded types being in reality advanced ones. ; | ‘¢ How profoundly eriowaiine is the islet fauna of New Zealand! Much of this is new to me. I wonder when their plants will receive the same treatment as you give to their birds, &c. I hope that you will gather your facts into a general work on the natural history of New Zealand. Your difficulty will then be to keep it down to a moderate size, especially as I hope you will illustrate plentifully. A good map will be necessary, as it is impossible to find in the ordinary ones many of the places you mention. ee To my mind Sir Joseph Hooker could not have vai a higher compliment to the literary quality of these papers. From boyhood White’s ‘ Natural History of Selborne’ has been one of my favourite books, as I suppose it has been with every student of ornithology. It is thus referred to by the learned author of the article on Ornithology in the ‘Encyclopedia Britannica’: ‘It has passed through a far greater number of editions than any other work on natural history in the whole world, and has become emphatically an English classic, the graceful simplicity of its style, the elevating tone of its spirit, and the sympathetic chords it strikes recommending it to every lover of Nature, while the strictly scientific reader can find few errors in the statements it contains, whether of matter of fact or opinion. It is almost certain that more than half the zoologists of the British Islands for the past seventy years or more have been infected with their love of the study by Gilbert White, and it can hardly be supposed that his influence will cease.” b ie a I i 7 ii = X INTRODUCTION. invent any hypothesis, and if it explains various large and independent masses of facts it rises to the rank of a well-grounded theory. . . . If the principle of natural selection does explain these and other large bodies of facts, it ought to be received. On the ordinary view of each species having been independently created we gain no scientific explanation of any one of these facts. We can only say that it has so pleased the Creator to command that the past and present inhabitants of the world should appear in a certain order and in certain areas: that He has impressed on them the most extraordinary resemblances, and has classed them in eroups subordinate to groups. But by such statements we gain no new knowledge ; we do not connect together facts and laws; we explain nothing.’* In his ‘Origin of Species’ Mr. Darwin has shown that all organic beings, without exception, tend to increase at a very high ratio, and that the inevitable result is an ever-recurrent struggle for existence, in the natural course of which the strongest ultimately prevail and the weakest fail. By this process those variations, however slight, which are favourable are preserved or selected, and those which are unfavourable are destroyed. This continued production of new forms through natural selection inevitably leads to the extermination of the older and less improved forms, these latter being necessarily intermediate in structure, as well as in descent, between the last-produced forms and their original parent species. The position to which this brings us is thus stated: “ Now, if we suppose a species to produce two or more varieties, and these in the course of time to produce other varieties, the principle of good being derived from diversification of structure will generally lead to the preservation of the most divergent varieties; thus the lesser differences characteristic of varieties come to be augmented into the greater differences characteristic of species, and, by the extermination of the older intermediate forms, new species end by being distinctly defined objects. Thus, also, we shall see how it is that organic beings can be classed by what is called a natural method in distinct groups—species under genera, and genera under families.” Following the subject up with consummate skill, and bringing together a marvellous array of facts and observations, Darwin has shown very conclusively that descent with modification has been from time immemorial the means, whether naturally or artificially it matters not, of producing new and distinct forms of animal and vegetable life. The subject is on the face of it a very attractive one, and, when we come to deal with the actual facts, there is room for almost endless speculation in all directions. But what I propose to do now is to single out some well- established features and peculiarities of the New Zealand avifauna, to which, as most of my readers are aware, I have for many years given special attention, and to consider their direct bearing on the theory of evolution, or, putting it the other way about, to endeavour to find in the Darwinian doctrine of natural development their true and rational explanation. t * «The Variations of Animals and Plants under Domestication,’ 2nd ed., vol. i., page 9. + “The theory of evolution was started as an hypothesis by Buffon, and defended and modified by Lamarck and others, but was regarded by most scientific men as a wild dream, until Darwin and Wallace, after years of patient accumulation of materials, overwhelmed the learned world with such a vast array of facts that with scarcely an exception scientific men acknowledged their defeat, and the hypothesis of evolution was raised to the rank of a theory as firmly based on facts as Newton’s theory of gravitation, or the undulatory theory of light. . . . . The great charm of Darwin’s theory of natural selection is its simplicity. The theory of evolution by descent with modification had a great deal to recommend it; but the difficulty always presented itself, By what possible machinery could it be worked? ‘To suppose a special creation of every species was bad enough, and looked weak, as if the clock always wanted mending or altering to make it go right. But to suppose not precisely a special creation, but a special inter- ference, in a given direction, with the law of like producing like, at every generation, was a thousand times worse; and, consequently, of two evils scientific men chose the least, and the theory of evolution was laid on the shelf until Charles Darwin and Wallace took it down again. The fact of the survival of the fittest in the struggle for existence is such a simple theory that a child can understand it; and not only the scientific world, but almost every educated man, accepted the new theory of evolution as soon as they saw—or thought they saw—the simplicity of the machinery by which it is worked.’’—Seebohm. INTRODUCTION. Xl Perhaps there is no country in the world where the process of natural selection among birds has had so favourable a field for its operation as New Zealand, owing to its great age as a continental island, and to the entire absence of natural enemies, up to the time, at any rate, of its occupation by man and the introduction of domestic animals which afterwards became feral. As a result, what do we find here as representing the ancient order of Paleeognathic birds? I will not refer at present to the Moa and its kindred, because these birds have become extinct, and, except by way of analogy, do not come into my present subject. But look at the genus Apteryx, taking, for illustration, the oldest known member of the genus, A. australis. Here is a bird with, so to speak, the body of a Turkey and the wings of a Sparrow, these limbs having become so dwarfed by the operation of natural laws that they are reduced to mere rudiments; yet all the muscular parts, aborted and atrophied though they be, become perfectly distinct under the dissecting knife. Unlike all other known birds, instead of having the nostrils placed in the nasal groove, or on the ridge of the bill (as in the Petrel family), they are situate under a terminal protuberance at the extreme end of the upper mandible; and, on examination, it is seen that the produced upper mandible is in reality a prolongation of the facial bones—the result, no doubt, of long-continued gradual development in that direction—the brain being pushed back, as it were, into a cranial pan comparatively small for the size of the bird. These modifica- tions of structure are of course adaptations to the feeding habits of the bird, which subsists principally on earthworms, in search of which, aided by its power of smell, it probes the soft ground or loose vegetable mould in its forest haunts. In addition to this the head is furnished with long rictal hairs or feelers, as sensitive as the whiskers of a cat, and its hearing is known to be marvellously acute. Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace, in his admirable work on ‘ Darwinism,’ says (at page 114): ‘“‘ So soon, however, as we approach the higher and more fully developed groups, we see indications of the often-repeated extinction of lower by higher forms. This is shown by the great gaps that separate the mammalia, birds, reptiles, and fishes from each other; whilst the lowest forms of each are always few in number and confined to limited areas. Such are the lowest mammals— the Echidna and Ornithorhynchus of Australia; the lowest birds—the Apteryx of New Zealand and the Cassowaries of the New Guinea region ; while the lowest fish—the Amphioxus or lance- let—is completely isolated, and has apparently survived only by its habit of burrowing in the sand. ‘T'he great distinctness of the carnivora, ruminants, rodents, whales, bats, and other Orders of Mammalia: of the Accipitres, Pigeons, and Parrots, among birds; and of the beetles, bees, flies, and moths, among insects, all indicate an enormous amount of extinction among the com- paratively low forms by which, on any theory of evolution, these higher and more specialised eroups must have been preceded.” Now, whilst accepting Mr. Wallace’s general argument and admitting its soundness, I must venture to differ entirely with that distinguished observer as to the position assigned to the genus Apteryx. I cannot for a moment admit that the Kiwi is one of the lowest birds in the sense implied. It rather seems to me to be an extremely specialised form, and one to which Mr. Wallace’s own felicitous remarks (at page 105) are specially applicable: ‘In species which have a wide range, the struggle for existence will often cause some individuals or groups of individuals to adopt new habits, in order to seize upon vacant places in nature where the struggle is less severe. Some, living amongst extensive marshes, may adopt a more aquatic mode of life; others, living where forests abound, may become more arboreal. In either case we cannot doubt that the changes of structure needed to adapt them to their new habits would soon be brought about, because we know that variations in all the external organs and all their separate parts are very abundant and are also considerable in amount. That such divergence of character has actually occurred we have some direct evidence.” By way of Xl INTRODUCTION. illustration, Mr. Wallace reminds us that Madeira, like many other oceanic islands in the temperate zone, is much exposed to sudden gusts of wind, and that, as most of the fertile land is on the coast, insects which flew much would be very liable to be blown out to sea and lost. Year after year, therefore, those individuals which had shorter wings, or which used them least, were preserved; till in process of time, as we now see, the insects of Madeira have become wingless and terrestrial, or, if they have not entirely lost their wings, have had them so reduced as to be useless for flight. To my mind it would not be right to confound’ these wingless insects with the lower forms of the “more generalised ancestors,” but rather to assign them a place among the “higher and more specialised groups.” For it must be borne in mind that, as Mr. Wallace himself expresses it (page 120), the ‘‘ remarkable advance in the higher and larger groups does not imply any universal law of progress in organisation, because we have, at the same time, numerous examples of the persistence of lowly-organised forms, and also of absolute degradation or degeneration. Serpents, for example, have been developed from some lizard-lke type which has lost its limbs; and though this loss has enabled them to occupy fresh places in nature, and to increase and flourish to a marvellous extent, yet it must be considered to be a retrogression rather than an advance in organisation. The same remark will apply to the Whale tribe among Mammals; to the blind amphibia and insects of the great caverns; and among plants to the numerous cases in which flowers, once specially adapted to be fertilised by insects, have lost their gay corollas and their special adaptations, and have become degraded into wind-fertilised forms.” But it seems to me that on this pomt Mr. Wallace is inconsistent with himself; because at page 481, after referring to my figure of the wing in vol. ili. of our ‘Transactions,’ he says: “Hven in the Apteryx, the minute external wing bears a series of nearly twenty stiff quill- like feathers”? ; and he goes on to say, “ These facts render it almost certain that the Struthious birds do not owe their imperfect wings to a direct evolution from a reptilian type, but to a retrograde development from some low form of winged birds, analogous to that which has produced the Dodo and the Solitaire from the more pronounced Pigeon-type.” He adds that our best anatomists agree that both Dinornis and Apteryx are more nearly allied to the Cassowaries and Emus than to the Ostriches and Rheas.* Now, from this point of view, I think the language in which I long ago characterised the Kiwi—although challenged by Professor Hutton and others—is fully justified, namely, that it is the diminutive and degenerate representative of the ancient colossal forms of wingless birds. Its very existence, as we now find it, is an illustration of the truth as formulated by Wallace himself, that “ greater swiftness, increased cunning, nocturnal habits, change of colour, or the power of climbing trees and living for a time on their foliage or fruit, may be the means adopted by different species to bring themselves into harmony with the new conditions; and by the continued survival of those individuals only which varied sufficiently in the right direction, the necessary modifications of structure or of function would be brought about, just as surely as man has been able to breed the greyhound to hunt by sight and the foxhound by scent, or has produced from the same wild plant such distinct forms as the cauliflower and the Brussels sprouts.’ > * At page 416, op. cit., Mr. Wallace says, ‘‘ Whales, like Moas and Cassowaries, carry us back to a remote past, of whose conditions we know too little for safe speculation. We are quite ignorant of the ancestral forms of either of these groups, and are therefore without the materials needful for determining the steps by which the change took place, or the causes which brought it about.” + Mr. Wallace, in acknowledging receipt of my pamphlet, wrote in appreciative terms of the paper as a whole, adding that on the only points on which he disagreed with me he had communicated an article to Nature. On turning this up (vol. lii., p. 60) I found the following criticism: ‘‘Its main subject-matter is a discussion of the various ways in which INTRODUCTION. Xu I have referred to certain superficial characters; and for the purposes of our argument we need not at present go beyond these. The Apteryx, then, I take to be the most specialised type of its kind—an extreme form of degeneracy, using that term in its Darwinian sense. But, besides Apteryx australis, there are five, if not six, other species, more or less distinct the one from the other, but all closely allied in every respect, size and colour being almost the only distinguishing characters. I will enumerate these species, with the ascertained range of each. Apteryx australis, already mentioned, inhabits the southernmost parts of the South Island; Apteryx mantelli, Bartlett, and Apteryx bulleri, Sharpe, are spread over various parts of the North Island; Apteryx owent, Gould, is met with in the wooded country in the northern and eastern portions of the South Island; Apteryx haasti, Potts, in the Heaphy Ranges and further south; Apteryx occidentalis, Rothschild, on the western slopes of the Southern Alps, and, curiously enough, in the Tararua Ranges on the west coast of the North Island; and, lastly, Apteryx lawryi, Roths- child, on Stewart Island. Mr. Walter Rothschild, who owns the largest collection of Apteryges in the world, has, after mature consideration, decided to separate the spotted grey Kiwis into two species—Apteryx owent, Gould, and Apteryx occidentalis, Rothschild. Of the latter he possessed for years a living example, obtained in the neighbourhood of Milford Sound, nearly as large as Apteryx haasti and very different in appearance from Apteryx oweni, having banded plumage, a dark head, and blackish-grey feet. To this species he refers Mr. Morgan Carkeek’s example from the Tararua the peculiarities of structure, colour, distribution, and habits of New Zealand birds serve to illustrate the theory of Natural Selection, and often to afford very strong arguments in its favour. The address is very clear and forcible, full of interesting facts and suggestive observations, and will be read with interest by all naturalists. One or two points only call for any critical observation. Sir Walter Buller objects to the Apteryx being classed by Mr. Wallace as among ‘the lowest birds,’ because he says it is really ‘an extremely specialised form.’ But surely the Ratitee are lower than the Carinatz, and the Apteryx is so specialised as to be almost the least bird-like of the Ratite. If it is not to be classed among the lowest existing birds, where are they to be found?” Tt will be seen, on referring to what I said, that what I objected to was the placing of the Kiwi among the lowest forms of bird-life “in the sense implied.”” In the sense now used by Mr. Wallace, I admit, of course, that the Kiwi as a Ratite form comes at the end of the chain in our earlier system of classification ; but, as I understand it, that is a very different point to the one I was discussing. In accordance with that system, and having regard to their natural affinities, I placed the group of Kiwis at the very end of my ‘ Birds of New Zealand,’ but that is in no way inconsistent with my argument as to Apteryx being a highly specialised form. Writing of this bird, the late Professor Owen said : ‘‘ Here we have a true bird, exhibiting a remarkable modification of the whole ornithic structure, in reference to exclusively terrestrial life and nocturnal habits; and we learn from this adherence to a typical organisation, in a very rare exception, that the teleological conclusions respecting the typical construction, as it is manifested in the general rule, are in no way affected by such an exception, because the modification of one part necessarily affects that of many others, perhaps of the whole body. If, for example, the fixation and structure of the lungs require a broad sternum and concomitant modifications of the coracoid and scapula for the mechanical part of the respiratory process, then it may be more convenient for the levator of the humerus to rise below that bone from the sternum, and act in the due direction by a modification of its course, although the locomotion of the bird may in no way be facilitated by the aggregation of muscular substance beneath the centre of gravity, nor the size of the levator be such as to render its particular position a matter of any consequence in regard to that centre.’ Professor Newton, in his admirable article on ‘ Birds’ in the ‘Encyclopedia Britannica,’ referring to the extraordinary development of our Ratite, says: ‘‘If we take the birds alone, and compare the two subclasses into which the existing or recent members of the class are divided, we find the Australian region remarkable for its ornithic singularity. The smaller of these two subclasses, the Ratite, contains six very natural groups—which might well be called orders—including, according to the most exaggerated computation of their number, less than forty species, while the large subclass, the Carinatz, comprehends some ten thousand species.” In a footnote he adds: “If it be true, as seems to be most likely the case, that Dinornis and its allies were absolutely devoid of wings, we should in them have a divergence from the normal ornithic type which is altogether unique in the whole class, and for its singularity might well be set off against the multifariousness exhibited by the Didelphia’’—one of the subclasses of Mammals characteristic of the Australian region. X1V INTRODUCTION. ranges (North Island), and a number of specimens collected by different persons on the west coast of the South Island. Of the distinctness of his type I have no doubt whatever; but I am not quite prepared to follow him in uniting the others with it. They seem to me to be a form intermediate between it and the Little Grey Kiwi (Apteryx oweni) with which we are all so familiar. Here, in fact, we have an instance of the boundary-line between one supposed species and another being so indistinct as to occasion constant doubt and confusion in the discrimination of the forms. In fact, the dividing lines between these species, at certain points, are so indeterminate that ornithologists are not yet agreed as to how many independent species should be recognised. Dr. Otto Finsch, the well-known German authority, contends that the North Island bird cannot be separated from Apteryx australis, except as a local variety, although in this view he now stands alone; Professor Newton, whose opinion always carries great weight with me, declares his inability to distinguish the former as a species distinct from Apteryx lawryi of Stewart Island, although he recognises Apteryx australis, which occupies an intermediate range of country. But the Professor is also in some doubt as to the propriety of admitting Apteryx haasti as a species. Mr. Rothschild, who named the Stewart-Island bird Apteryx lawryi, in compliment to myself, is now convinced that it is identical with—not Apteryx mantelli (as Professor Newton suggests) but A. australis. Then, again, with regard to Apteryx mantelli, in the North Island. Most people are familiar with the chestnut-brown Kiwi which inhabits the Pirongia ranges and is found all the way down the west coast to Wanganui. But all the specimens I have seen from the east coast are almost black in plumage, even the feet being blackish instead of whitish-brown as in the ordinary bird. I have decided to keep this form distinct, under the name bestowed by Dr. Sharpe in 1888, Apteryx bullert ; for the fact remains that the birds from this part of the country are always dark coloured, and, as such, readily distinguishable from the common Kiwi. As I have mentioned in my work (vol u., p. 310), there is likewise a rufous-coloured form, with plumage of a very peculiar texture (‘ Kiwi-kura’ of the Maoris), which I found breeding true in the Pirongia ranges; but, as this bird inhabits the same district as Apteryx mantelli, it can only, for the present, be regarded as a variety. Nevertheless it shows very clearly the latent tendency to vary. Apteryx lawryt is the largest of these species, as Apteryx haasti (which is next in size) is the most handsome, owing to its chestnut-and-brown dappled plumage. Apteryx lawryi rans as it were in parallel lines with Apteryx mantelli and Apteryx australis, as Apteryx haasti does with Apteryx owen and Apteryx occidentalis. But, whether all these species be accepted as distinct, or some of them be regarded as mere varieties of others (which will always be debatable ground), there can be no doubt whatever that they have all come from a common parent stock, and that within. a period of time, geologically speaking, comparatively recent. Going back to eavrlier times, and reasoning by analogy, we may venture to infer that the remote ancestor of the degenerate parent form was a volant bird—probably one tolerably well furnished with wings and tail, with a proportionately large head and short bill, with the muscles of the posterior limbs far less developed than in the Kiwi, and with very different plumage, both as to form and texture. It may be asked—how it is that we find the Kiwi developing a long stiletto-like bill, whilst another race of wingless birds, the Moas, belonging to the same order and inhabiting the same country, were perfecting themselves in an entirely opposite direction? But it must be remembered that, according to the ascertained laws of variation, divergence of character in opposite directions may take place even among members of one and the same species, at one and the same time, and within the same geographical area. Isolation, for such a purpose, does ‘ ‘I ' INTRODUCTION. XV not necessarily mean insulation, as some writers appear to assume. Wallace puts it very clearly : “ Isolation will often be produced in a continuous area whenever a species becomes modified in accordance with varied conditions or diverging habits. For example, a wide-ranging species may, in the northern or colder part of its area, become modified in one direction, and in the southern part in another direction; and, though for a long time an intermediate form may continue to exist in the intervening area, this will be likely soon to die out, both because its numbers will be small, and it will be more or less pressed upon in varying seasons by the modified varieties, each better able to endure extremes of climate. So, when one portion of a terrestrial species takes to a more arboreal or to a more aquatic mode of life, the change of habit itself leads to the isolation of each portion.” Now, it is not difficult to imagine that in the case of a country which was oradually emerging from the depths of the ocean, presenting for long-continued periods of time low flats more or less covered with scrubby vegetation, available for purposes of concealment, a smaller size would be beneficial to the already practically wingless birds, the more so if correlated with a longer bill, for the purpose of hunting for annelids and insects in the increasing ‘deposits of mould covering these newly-formed flats. And, bearing in mind that natural selection acts solely “by the preservation of useful variations, or those which are beneficial to the organism under the conditions to which it is exposed,” we should in this case regard the so-called degeneration of the Kiwi as an improvement in the organism of the bird in relation to its conditions and environment. So also, in regard to those wingless birds which continued to inhabit the table-lands, and to subsist on fern-roots and the ever-present “ cabbage-tree,” should we regard a longer neck and a stronger bill as beneficial variations, especially if correlated with a more massive posterior development, such as that which distinguishes Dinornis elephantopus and Dinorms crassus. May not the “giant Kiwi” (Megalapteryx hectori), the remains of which were discovered and described by the late Sir Julius von Haast, represent one of the intermediate forms which have been stamped out and lost in the long-continued struggle for existence along the borderland, so to speak, of these different races of wingless birds ? As I have already stated, each so-called species of Kiwi is restricted in its range to a particular district. In the case of all the species this range is insular, save as to the appear- ance of the grey Kiwi on the Tararua range, which I shall presently endeavour to account for. Now, if any sudden catastrophe were to overtake New Zealand, destroying all animal life, the remains of the different species of Kiwi (so far as they could be distinguished) would be found in different localities and never commingled. This is not the case with Dinornis and its allies. The bones of about a thousand birds were exhumed by Sir Julius von Haast from the Glenmark marshes, and these comprised the skeletons of several genera and numerous species, varying considerably in stature, all mixed up indiscriminately together, showing that these birds had inhabited the plains of Canterbury at one and the same time. I have endeavoured to furnish an explanation of this in my introduction to the ‘Birds of New Zealand,’ pages xxxiv. and xxxv. Adopting a theory first put forward by Professor Hutton—to whom I acknowledge my indebtedness—I attempted to show how this could have been brought about by natural causes. By going much further back in time—and that is the charm of the evolution theory, that it imposes practically no limits as to time and space—I have supposed that in very ancient times two or more species of brevipennate birds, themselves the descendants of volant birds of a still earlier epoch, roamed over a great southern continent, which, by some convulsion of nature, was afterwards submerged, leaving its higher levels and mountain-tops exposed in the form of numerous scattered islands, on which the survivors of the wingless race of birds would naturally remain ; that this state of things continued long enough—how long it is Xvi INTRODUCTION. impossible even to conjecture*—for the inhabitants of each island to develop new characters suited to their special environment in each case, thus bringing into existence in the end the various species of Dinornis and its allies as we now know them; that a widespread upheaval or elevation of the land followed, reuniting most of the islands, and resulting in the areas now known to us as the Islands of New Zealand, when, of course, the Struthious birds which had been developed in the smaller insular areas would be able, in process of time, to commingle on common ground. “In process of time,” I say, because it would naturally take a considerable time for the newly-elevated areas to become covered with vegetation, although, on the other hand, it is quite possible that this elevation may have been gradual in its operation everywhere. I suggested that when, by the gradual subsidence of their domain beneath the waters of the great Pacific, they were driven as it were into a corner and overcrowded, the struggle for existence became a severe one, and the extinction of the race then commenced; that the more unwieldy giants, thus cabined and confined, were the first to succumb ; and that the smaller species, perhaps in course of time differentiated from their ancestors by the altered physical conditions of their environment, con- tinued to live on till their final extirpation by man within recent historic times. Professor Hutton supposes two successive submergences and elevations of the land at long intervals, but in this I am unable to follow him. Without that, the theory is sufficient, I think, to account for the co-existence in comparatively recent times of the various genera and species. But, as the modifications in form and structure constitute important generic distinctions, very long periods of time must have elapsed after the continental submergence before the final elevation of the land which made it possible for these wingless birds to commingle as they evidently did in later times. On the assumption that the North and South Islands were never reunited after the great sub- mergence, these two areas having been independently formed by the fusion of different sets of islands, north and south, when the elevation took place, this theory will account for the singular fact that the Dinornis remains found in the North Island represent different species of birds from those of which remains have been so abundantly discovered in the South. Professor Hutton had been of opinion that the smaller forms of Paleognathe in New Zea- land must have preceded the larger; and the fact that bones of only the smaller species of Dinornis and Syornis have as yet been found in both Islands seems to favour that view. But the evidence on this point is, I think, far from being exhausted, for fresh discoveries of Moa-bones are still being made from time to time, and in the most unlikely localities. On the other hand, whatever date may be assigned for the extinction of the Moa (and upon this question there is much difference of opinion), there seems little doubt that the colossal forms, such as Dinornis maximus, D. altus, D. validus, and D. excelsus, were the first to become extinct, because none of their remains have ever yet been found in the ancient kitchen-middens, mixed up with the rejectamenta of human feasts, or bearing evidence by chipping or gnawing of manipulation by man in a recent state ; besides which they have sometimes been found in a highly-fossilized or mineralized condition, unlike the bones of the smaller species, which contain much organic matter and often look perfectly fresh. I am of opinion that the larger forms are the more * Lord Kelvin, the late President of the Royal Society, after thanking me for a copy of my paper, wrote: ‘ You and the geologists must, however, be satisfied with twenty million years for the earth’s age. The 306 million years for the denudation of the Weald in Kent, given as part of his foundation in the first edition of ‘The Origin of Species,’ was dropped by Darwin himself after I showed it to be inconsistent with dynamics, and I think you will not find it in the third or later editions. The 270 million years ‘since the Cambrian period,’ which you quote from Lyell, is utterly untenable. He supported his assumption of infinite past time for geology by a thermo-electric invention of a perpetual motion as good as many of the million ‘ perpetual motions’ that have been invented by ingenious persons who have not learned dynamics or physics.” A sufficient length of time was my postulate; and twenty million years suits my argument quite as well as the more extended period. NT INTRODUCTION. XV1l ancient, and are those that roamed originally over the afterwards submerged continent, and that the smaller-sized Moas, of different genera and species, are the descendants of those which had been specialised in the various islands during the long epoch following the continental submergence.“ Professor Hutton, accepting the outcome of the late Professor Parker’s important researches into the embryology of this form, admits that in the Kiwi the hind limbs undergo a relative diminution in size between the time of hatching and the attainment of fully adult pro- portions, especially in the case of the female; and he adds: “This implies that the ancestral Kiwis were, like Megalapteryx, larger than the living birds; and we may infer the same thing from the great size of the egg. It is a legacy from a larger bird which is not easy to get rid of. The greater proportionate size of the female is probably due to its having to lay such a very large ege. The males have decreased in size more rapidly than the females, who were handicapped by such large eggs.” Professor Hutton suggested that the reverse of this obtained in the case of the Moas; but there is no evidence of that. After a critical examination of all the evidence afforded by the bones and their distribution, he says: “ Evidently Anomalopteryx and Palapteryx are the oldest forms; but if Palapteryx had wings it could not have been derived from the wingless Anomalopteryx ; and, if the birds were increasing in size, Anomalopteryx could not have been derived from Palapteryx.’t Exactly so; but on my hypothesis these difficulties disappear, and the supposed conditions are in harmony with it. In this connection I may mention the curious fact that, although Anomalopteryx didiformis is one of the smallest of the Moas, scarcely exceeding in size the Kuropean Bustard, it had proportionately the largest skull of all the Dinornithide. Commenting on this, Professor Owen remarks that, if the peculiarly nutritious roots of the common fern contributed, together with buds or foliage of trees, to the food of the various species of Moa, the concomitant gain of power in the locomotive and fossorial limbs does not appear to have called for a proportionate growth or development of brain or of bill. As with the Kiwi, it would seem that the development of the Moa was downwards, or in the way of degeneration, and the restriction of its range to small insular areas would doubtless favour this dwarfing process. One can understand how in process of time the various species of Kiwi now known to us have become evolved from the parent stock, by means of natural selection and the survival of the fittest, operating under well-established natural laws. Any divergences of character, however small to begin with, long continued and persisted in, would account for any number of so-called species in various parts of the country. For, a species—what is it? What does the name denote ? Of what use is it to science except as an artificial definition, and for the greater con- venience of systematic classification ? | But the great difficulty in any theory on the subject is to account for the presence of the Grey Kiwi on the west coast of both Islands. Our knowledge of its existence in the North Island rests on a skin brought to me in a fresh state by Mr. Morgan Carkeek, who obtained it « The late Professor Jeffrey Parker, F.R.S., in a letter dated Feb. 14, 1898, wrote to me saying that his observa- tions on the skull of the Dinornithide contradict my view that the larger forms of Moa are the most ancient, the oldest and least specialised type of skull being that of Mesopteryx, whilst the very tall forms and thick-legged ones are highly specialised in different directions. He adds: ‘‘ You are quite right about the extreme specialisation of Apteryzx.” Professor Hutton at one time believed that the smaller forms of Dinornithide in New Zealand must have preceded the larger ; but it would seem that, after closer study of the subject, he has arrived at the same conclusion as myself; for, in his article on ‘The Rise and Fall of the Moa,’ communicated to the Canterbury Press in November, 1896, he says: ‘‘ The commoner kinds of Moa were comparatively small birds, from three feet to five feet high, and it seems probable that the giants of the race, which attained a height of about 12 feet, had all died out before the advent of man. At any rate, there is no record of any bones of Dinornis maximus or of Dinornis giganteus having been found among the remains of Maori feasts.” +‘On the Moas of New Zealand,’ by Captain F. W. Hutton, F.R.S., Trans. N. Z. Inst., vol. xxiv., p. 149. C Xvi INTRODUCTION. just below the snow-line on the highest of the Tararua ranges, where, he states, he could have collected many more. For the present, I confess that the presence of this species in the North Island is very perplexing. One solution that suggests itself to my mind is that it may have been introduced in former times through human agency. It will be remembered that the Maoris have a tradition that the Pukeko, or Swamp-hen (Porphyrio melanonotus)—which, until recent years, when its haunts were invaded and drained, was excessively abundant in both Islands—was first introduced by their ancestors, who brought tame birds with them in their canoes from Hawaiki. It must be borne in mind also that the range of the Grey Kiwi includes the north-west coast of the Nelson District, for specimens which I obtained from that locality have been referred by Mr. Rothschild to his Apteryx occidentalis; and, furthermore, that the passage to and from the Kapiti coast, on the opposite side of Cook Strait, could easily be effected by the Maoris in their war-canoes. ‘To entrap a few Kiwis, and bring them across alive in flax cages, would have been a very simple operation, and a far less ambitious project than that of stocking New Zealand with the Swamp-hen from far-off Hawaiki. The suggestion does not seem an unlikely one, when we remember that the Kiwi was always highly prized by the Maoris from the earliest times, both as an article of food and on account of its feathers. On the theory put forward, and assuming, as we fairly may do, that the North and South Islands have never been united since the continental submergence—in other words, that there was a simultaneous elevation of the two areas, north and south, with a permanent sea-channel dividing them—we can understand and account for the existence of closely-allied representative species in the two Islands. I will give some examples: in the North Island, the Blue-wattled Crow (Glawcopis wilsont); in the South, the Yellow-watttled Crow (Glaucopts cinerea); in the North Island, the Saddle-back (Creadion carunculatus) ; and in the South, its grey ally, Creadion cinereus. It is true that Creadion carunculatus is found also in the South Island, which is the proper home of Creadion cinereus. This may, I think, be accounted for by an accidental colonisa- tion at some time, through the crossing of stray individuals to the other side of the Straits: even a single pair would suffice. Rare as this bird now is along the wooded shore on the north side of Cook Strait, | can remember that, about forty years ago, it was more abundant there than in any other part of the country. But to resume my list of examples: in the North Island we have the Thick-billed Thrush (Turnagra tanagra); in the South, the common Twrnagra crassirostris ; in the North Island, the Wood-robin (Miro albifrons); in the South, its congener Miro australis ; in the North Island, the Whitehead (Clitonyx albicapilla); in the South, the Yellowhead (Clitonyx ochrocephala) ; in the North Island, the White-breasted Tomtit (Muscitrea toitor); in the South, the Yellow-breasted Tomtit (Muscitrea macrocephala) ; in the North Island, the Pied Fantail (Rhipidura flabellifera); in the South, the Black Fantail (Rhipidura fuliginosa). The same remark applies to the former of these as to the Saddle-back, and the same explanation may be offered. It will, perhaps, be objected that this bird is too weak-winged to cross the Strait under any circumstances ; but, as against this, I may mention that during the past twenty years there have been several well-authenticated cases of the Black Fantail crossing the Strait to the North Island; and of late years there has not been wanting evidence of its breeding there. What, therefore, is there to prevent such a species becoming naturalised in the North Island, and that without the intervention of any but natural causes? A gale of wind, under favourable conditions for the passage of the Strait (about 18 miles) would alone be sufficient to occasion this dispersal of the species. In addition to the cases enumerated above, I may instance the remarkable Ground Owl (Sceloglaux), of which, as we now know, there were two species—the White-faced Owl (S. albifacies) now on the border-land of extinction, confined to the South Island—and the smaller, Rufous-faced Owl (S. rufifacies), now presumably extinct, which inhabited the North Island. Of this latter INTRODUCTION. X1X form the single existing specimen—obtained in the Wellington district nearly half a century ago —will be found figured and fully described in vol u. of this ‘ Supplement.’ Now, all the representative forms I have named are accepted by ornithologists in general as good and true species. But take any two of them and compare them carefully. Who can for a moment doubt their common parentage ?—how far back in time, it is not our present purpose to enquire. “Species,” “sub-species,’ and “geographical forms” are now terms in general use among ornithologists, as well as among other specialists, and, as it seems to me, simply for the purpose of indicating the distinctness or otherwise of the lines of demarcation separating one from another in their present stages of development under the slow and invisible, but nevertheless inevitable and sure, processes of that law of evolution which governs the whole Animal Kingdom. When we come to study the matter more closely it often seems well-nigh impossible to draw any specific line at all. So-called species often appear to run into one another by insensible gradations; so much so, indeed, that no two naturalists are agreed as to how much persistent difference is necessary to constitute a species, as distinguished from a sub-species or variety. Take, by way of illustration, the various forms of Wood-hen (Ocydromus) inhabiting New Zealand. Dr. Bowdler Sharpe, who, as a rule, does not err on the side of “lumping,” has declared (Bull. B. O. C., 1893, p- 30) that he finds it impossible to distinguish Ocydromus greyi of the North Island from Ocydromus earl of the South Island. He says further (loc. cit., p. 29) that he prefers the simple arrangement in my first edition of the ‘Birds of New Zealand,’ limiting the number of species to three, to that of my second edition, fifteen years later, which admits five species of the group. This alteration, however, was not made by me hastily or without full consideration. I believe I have critically examined a very much larger number of Ocydromi than any other working ornithologist, and, although I do not wish to underrate the perplexities presented by the intererading of plumage, I think that I have adopted a very cautious rule of admission. Professor Hutton has recognised at least one more form—namely, Ocydromus finschi—and a naturalist given to what is termed “splitting” might easily have increased the number still further. But this is the crux of the whole thing. In this particular instance the species of one naturalist is the ‘“sub-species”’ of another, and the “local race” of a third. What is this but the existence of transitional forms under the steady march of evolution ? But the question of the great variability of the South Island Wood-hens opens up a larger one, which I confess myself quite unable to answer. How is it that in the North Island there is but one well-marked species of Wood-hen spread over its entire area, whilst in the South Island, under practically the same conditions of environment, there are at least four species, and possibly more, merging into one another in such a way as to puzzle even the most expert ornithologists ? The genus Ocydromus offers an exceptionally good example for a study of this sort, because, although furnished with ample wings, the quills are soft and useless, and the birds in consequence are flightless. To take another instance of the kind: the Kakapo or Ground-parrot (Stringops habroptilus) has ample wings, and yet it is incapable of flight. The presence of this flightless bird, essentially the same in all respects, in both Islands, presents a difficulty which cannot be ignored. Some species are, however, more persistent: in their character than others; and it may be that the Kakapo, as it existed in different areas before the final elevation, had reached its full develop- ment, and has remained stationary ever since. Its markings had become so exactly like the green mosses and other vegetation among which it feeds, thus effectually protecting it from birds of prey, and, in the absence of feral animals, the faculty of flight had become so unnecessary to ? it, that it is difficult to see in what direction natural selection could operate further to the advantage of the bird. It may be asked why, seeing that the Kakapo is flightless from long disuse of its wings, these members have not been more completely aborted, or dwarfed to mere