Art III.—Critical Notes on the Ornithological portion of “Taylor's New Zealand and its Inhabitants.“

Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 3, 1870, Page 11

Art III.—Critical Notes on the Ornithological portion of “Taylor's New Zealand and its Inhabitants.“ By Walter Buller, F.L.S., F.G.S. [Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, September 17, 1870.] In offering to the Society some critical notes on the Rev. Mr. Taylor's recently published account of the New Zealand Birds,*Te lka a Maui; or, New Zealand and its Inhabitants. By the Rev. Richard Taylor, M.A., F.G.S. London: 1870. 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 (Eudynamys taïtensis) 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.

3. The Weka (Ocydromus 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 Notornis 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 Falconidæ, the author places “Falco Novœ Zelandiœ vel Circus Gouldii.” Two birds belonging to distinct genera are thus associated as synonymes. The description evidently refers to the Harrier (Circus Gouldii). 6. In treating of the so-called “Night-hawk,” the author has confused the nomenclature, for there is no such bird known as Hieracidea Novœ Zealandiœ Gouldii. H. Novœ Zelandiœ 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, slender, curved bill, and not the male, and vice versa. The legs are black with a tinge of blue on 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 Novœ Zelandiœ) becomes extremely fat at certain seasons 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

and is a honey eater, but it nevertheless does not belong to the genus Trichoglossus, 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,’ ascribed 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 (Sphenœacus punctatus) has a graduated, acuminate tail, and not “a tail composed of four long and four short feathers.” 13. Under the head of “Troglodytinœ,” 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” is a native name. It was adopted by M. Lesson, in 1831, to distinguish 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 Toitoi. The author probably refers to Petroica toitoi. 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 Novœ Zelandiœ) belongs to a totally different family. 18. The author's conjecture that the “light variety” of Kaka (Nestor) may be Platycercus auriceps, is far wide of the mark, as Nestor 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 Novœ Zelandiœ has a black bill, not a “red” one.

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 Alcidé, 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,— Aptenodytes Pennantii, Eudyptes pachyrhynchus, E. antipodes, Spheniscus minor, and S. undina. 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 “Sylviadœ erythaca.” There is a well-known genus, Erythacus, established by Cuvier, of which the robin red-breast, of Europe (E. rubecula), is the type, but the New Zealand robin belongs to a different generic group.