Art. XXIII.—Notes on certain disputed Species of New Zealand Birds.

Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 7, 1874, Page 211

Art. XXIII.—Notes on certain disputed Species of New Zealand Birds. By Walter L. Buller, D.Sc., F.L.S., C.M.Z.S., etc. [Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, 12th September, 1874. * Dated at London, 10th July, 1874.—Ed.] A small collection of New Zealand birds forwarded to Bremen by the authorities at the Colonial Museum for Dr. Finsch's examination has lately been sent over to London, and I have carefully repacked the skins for transmission to the colony. As each bird bears a memorandum in Dr. Finsch's handwriting giving the conclusion arrived at after an actual examination and comparison of specimens, and as several months must necessarily elapse before the specimens themselves can reach Wellington, I beg to summarize the results for the information of the Society. The collection contains one specimen of the handsomely marked Woodhen from the South Island, named by Captain Hutton Ocydromus hectori. Dr. Finsch is of opinion that this is a good and valid species. (See my remarks under the head of Varieties, Birds of New Zealand, p. 171.) Captain Hutton is less fortunate, however, with his Graucalus concinnus from Invercargill. Dr. Finsch says this is “undoubtedly the young of G. parvirostris, Gould,” and adds “no doubt nothing else than a straggler from

Tasmania.” In other words, Colluricincla concinna, Hutton = Graucalus concinnus, Hutton = Graucalus parvirostris, Gould. Dr. Finsch, after examining the specimen of the so-called Myiomoira dieffenbachii, writes, “this orange-breasted form is the true macrocephala,” thus confirming the view advanced by me in ‘Birds of New Zealand,’ p. 126. On another disputed point also I find that I have Dr. Finsch's support. In the ‘Ibis’ controversy between Captain Hutton and myself, reprinted in last year's Transactions of the N. Z. Institute, pp. 126–138, my opponent argued that my specimens of Xenicus longipes in the Colonial Museum had been “wrongly determined,” while I, on the other hand, contended that Xenicus stokesii had no real existence as a species. The specimen labelled by Captain Hutton as “Xenicus stokesii, female,” and sent forward to Dr. Finsch, is referred by this naturalist, without hesitation, to X. longipes, Gmelin. Captain Hutton's Chrysococcyx plagosus, from the Chatham Islands, (Trans. N. Z. Institute, Vol. V., p. 223), which I declined to admit into my work as a distinct species, is also rejected by Dr. Finsch, who refers the specimen sent to C. lucidus. The synonymy (auct. Finsch) stands thus:— Lamprococcyx plagosus, Gould (Handbook L., p. 623) = Chrysococcyx nitens, Forster = C. lucidus, Gml. The opinion expressed by me (Trans. N. Z. Institute, Vol. I., p. 111) that Anthochæra bulleri was identical with A. carunculata of Australia, is confirmed by Dr. Finsch's examination of the type specimen. Having good reason to doubt whether the specimen in question (originally from the Auckland Museum) was actually killed in New Zealand, as alleged, I expunged the species in my last published list of New Zealand birds. The example of Totanus canescens (sent by Mr. Purdie, of the Otago Museum), Dr. Finsch observes “agrees very well with European specimens.” The late Mr. D. Monro's specimen of Hydrochelidon leucoptera, from Marlborough, was rightly determined. The Petrel referred by Captain Hutton and myself to Puffinus brevicaudus is identified by Dr. Finsch as P. tenuirostris, Temm. Prion banksii, Hutton (nec Smith) = Prion turtur, Banks and Gould. Eudyptes antipodum, from the Otago Museum, is correctly identified. Dr. Finsch considers the crested Grebe with the dark breast only a variety of the well-known Podiceps cristatus. (See my remarks on this form, Birds of New Zealand, p. 354.)