Art. XXI.—Remarks on Dr. Finsch's Paper on New Zealand Ornithology.

Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Volume 8, 1875, Page 194

Art. XXI.—Remarks on Dr. Finsch's Paper on New Zealand Ornithology. By Walter L. Buller, C.M.G., D.Sc. [Read before the Wellington Philosophical Society, August 7, 1875.] I Have read with interest Dr. Otto Finsch's valuable contribution to the last volume of the “Transactions,” (pp. 226–236,) which is merely a precursor of his promised “Synopsis of the Birds of New Zealand,” and I find we are still at issue on several points:— 1. Stringops greyi is undoubtedly a mere variety of S. habroptilus. It is no more entitled to recognition as a species than the handsomely marked specimen in Brogden's Collection, of which I have recorded a description. (“Trans. N. Z. Inst.,” Vol. VII., p. 201.) 2. I do not believe in the existence of Acanthisitta citrina, Gmelin. The plumage of A. chloris differs in the male, female, and young. 3. I entirely dissent from Dr. Finsch's present view that the so-called Orthonyx albicilla and O. ochrocephala, of the North and South Islands respectively, belong to “totally different families.” In one of his earlier articles (“Journ. für Orn.,” July, 1870), he

expressed his conviction that they belonged not only to the same family, but to “the same genus.” (See my Notes, pp. 203–204, “Trans. N. Z. Inst., Vol. VII.) 4. In a former paper (“Trans. N. Z. Inst.,” Vol. V., p. 207) Dr. Finsch pronounced Myioscopus longipes and M. albifrons to be hardly separable, but he now acknowledges that he has never examined the latter species. The two birds are quite distinct, and represent each other in the North and South Islands. 5. Dr. Finsch appears to consider Gerygone sylvestris a good species. Unfortunately, Mr. Potts has not deposited his type with the rest of his collection in the Canterbury Museum, and I am unable to qualify my former opinion respecting it. 6. Dr. Finsch professes to put the synonymy of our New Zealand Godwit right; but it was I who did this, as the following passage will show:—“Drs. Finsch and Hartland, in their excellent work on the birds of Central Polynesia, have correctly referred our bird to the species described by Mr. Gould under the name of Limosa uropygialis; but as will be seen on reference to the historical synonymy given above, this name has no claim whatever to recognition. There are no less than five recorded names of antecedent date; and in settling questions of nomenclature, I shall, as far as possible, adhere to the established rule of adopting in every case the oldest admissible title. There can be no doubt that this was the species originally described (Naum Vög. Deutschl., viii., p. 429–1836) as, Limosa baueri; and I have accordingly restored its original name. But even supposing that, as the authors already cited have contended, Naumann's description is too vague to fix the species, and that Gray's L. brevipes is open to the same objection, then Limosa Novœ Zealandiœ (Gray) would undoubtedly stand in reference to a name bestowed by Gould at a later period.”—“Birds of New Zealand,” p. 199.) 7. Dr. Murie has cleared up the question of Rallus modestus being distinct, by an examination of the skeleton. (See Prof. Newton's Notes, Trans. N.Z. Inst., Vol. VII., p. 511.) 8. A comparison of Gray's type of Eudyptes pachyrhynchus with the specimens of E. chrysocomus in the British Museum satisfied me that they ought to be united. With regard to E. nigrivestis, I think I am right in stating that Mr. Gould, who distinguished the species, agreed with me that it could not stand.

9. I do not admit Dr. Finsch's new Penguin from Akaroa Heads Eudyptula oblosignata, and I feel sure that on receiving a larger series of specimens, he will himself relinquish it. 10. Dr. Finsch's observations on the coloration of Apteryx haasti, in which he declares that it “entirely agrees with Apteryx oweni, and is by no means darker, as Dr. Buller says,” is another instance of the danger of generalizing from a single specimen. There is now an example of Apteryx haasti in the Canterbury Museum, in which the chestnut coloring is almost as dark as in Apteryx mantelli. There are other points on which I am hardly inclined to agree with the learned author, but I have no wish to provoke a controversy by pursuing the subject further.