Front matter (continued 3)

ERYTHROMACHUS LEGUATI MILNE-EDWARDS.

Gelinote Leguat, t. II p. 71 (1708).

Erythromachus leguati Milne-Edwards, Ann. Sci. Nat. (5) XIX, pp. 6, 7, pls. XI, XII (1874).

Aphanopteryx leguati Günther & E. Newton, Phil. Trans. Vol. 168, pp. 431-432, pl. XLIII (1879).

Of the older writers only Leguat appears to have described the Rodriguez flightless rail. There are several references to "Hens," "Veld Hoenders," &c., but all appear to refer to the Mauritius bird Aphanapteryx bonasia. Leguat's description is as follows:—

"Our 'gelinotes' are fat all the year round and of a most delicate taste. Their colour is always of a bright grey, and there is very little difference in plumage between the two sexes. They hide their nests so well that we could not find them out, and consequently did not taste their eggs. They have a red naked area round their eyes, their beaks are straight and pointed, near two and two-fifths inches long, and red also. They cannot fly, their fat makes them too heavy for it. If you offer them anything red, they are so angry they will fly at you to catch it out of your hand, and in the heat of the combat we had an opportunity to take them with ease."

Quite extinct. Only known from descriptions and osseous remains. One tibia in the Tring Museum.

Habitat: Rodriguez Island.

PENNULA DOLE.

Pennula Dole, Hawaiian Alman. 1879 p. 54 (Reprint in Ibis 1880 p. 241).

I believe that the genus Pennula should be placed near Porzanula, but its wings are softer, the rectrices are next to invisible, but can be felt, as they have stiff shafts and are about 13 mm. long, though being entirely hidden by the soft tail-coverts. The tibia is bare for about 7 mm., the metatarsus covered in front with nearly a dozen transverse, very distinct scales, and distinctly reticulated behind. The bill much as in Poliolimnas and Porzanula.

Two species can be recognized: Pennula millsi, with a uniform upper surface, and Pennula sandwichensis, with a distinctly spotted upper side. Both forms are now extinct.

PENNULA MILLSI DOLE.

MOHO OF THE NATIVES.

(Plate 26, Fig. 3.)

Pennula millei (misprint for millsi) Dole, Hawaiian Almanac 1879 p. 54 (reprint in Ibis 1880 p. 241. "Uplands of Hawaii: named in honour of Mr. Mills, spec. in Mills's Coll., nearly extinct"); Rothsch., Avif. Laysan, etc., p. 241 pl. LXXVI.

Pennula ecaudata apud Wilson & Evans, Aves. Hawaii., part V, text and plate.

All we know of this bird are the five specimens caught by an old native bird-catcher named Hawelu for the late Mr. Mills of Hawaii. Two of these are now in my Museum, one in Cambridge, and two in the Bishop-Pauahi Museum in Honolulu. There can be no doubt that this bird is now extinct. All recent attempts to find specimens have been futile. Mr. Palmer, whom I sent a specially trained dog, also failed to find even traces of it. It lived formerly in the country between Hilo and the volcano Kilauea, in places where thick grass, Vaccinium and Dianella, forms the thickest cover possible. In former times the "Moho" was a dainty on the tables of the Hawaiian kings, but its disappearance is probably due to the introduction of the obnoxious mongoose and to bush fires.

PENNULA SANDWICHENSIS (GM.)

(Plate 26, Fig. 2.)

Rallus Sandwichensis Gmelin, Syst. Nat I p. 717 (1788—ex Latham! "Habitat exilis in insulis Sandwich").

Pennula Wilsoni Finsch, Notes Leyden Mus. XX p. 77 (1898—Finsch explains that the specimen in the Leyden Museum is not the type of Latham—and therefore of Gmelin's name—and therefore renames it).

For full synonymy and explanations of name, etc., cf. Avifauna of Laysan, p. 239, 240 and 243, also plate LXXVI.

Latham's description—from which Gmelin's diagnosis was taken—distinctly says that the feathers were "darkest in the middle," and in the Index Ornith. "supra maculis obscuris." Moreover, the unpublished drawing of Ellis, well reproduced in Mr. Scott Wilson's book, shows beyond doubt the identity of the bird of the old authors with the specimen in the Leyden Museum.

The Leyden specimen is all we are acquainted with, and of the history of this bird we know nothing but Latham's statement that it came from the Sandwich Islands.

TRIBONYX ROBERTI ANDREWS.

Tribonyx roberti Andrews, Ibis 1897, p. 356, pl. IX, figs 4-7.

This bird is described from an imperfect pelvis, a perfect left tibio-tarsus and a femur. The pelvis differs from that of T. mortieri in not having the deep depression in the ilia in front of the acetabulum and above the pectineal process. It also differs in having a rather wider pelvic escutcheon and wider renal fossal, and the supra-acetabular ridges of the ilia are smaller than in the Australian bird. The beautifully-preserved left tibia differs from that of T. mortieri in having the intercondylar groove wider and shallower, the inner condyle less massive, thus making the difference between the inner and outer condyle more marked; T. roberti also has the shaft immediately above the extensor bridge wider, the bridge itself less oblique, and the fibular crest is longer.

The measurements are:—

Pelvis.

Length of Ilium 82 mm. approx.

Least width of acetabular region of Pelvis 14 "

Width at Antitrochanter 40 "

Width at anterior angle of Pelvic Escutcheon 36 "

Width at Posterior angle of Pelvic Escutcheon 40 "

Length of Sacrum 68 "

Tibia.

Length 143 mm.

Width at distal extremity 12 "

Width at middle of shaft 7 "

Femur.

Length 83 mm.

Width at distal extremity 17 "

Width at middle of shaft 7 "

Habitat: Sirabé in C. Madagascar.

NOTORNIS OWEN.

Differs from Porphyrio by the secondaries being nearly as long as the primaries, and the wing-coverts more or less elongated, sometimes nearly hiding the quills.

Type: Notornis mantelli.

NOTORNIS MANTELLI OWEN.

Notornis mantelli Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. III, p. 377, pl. LVI, figs. 7-11 (1848).

This species was founded on a nearly entire skull, collected by Walter Mantell at Waingongoro, North Island, New Zealand. This skull is more than twice the size of that of Porphyrio melanotus. The basisphenoidal surface, however, is flatter, the anterior angle projects below the base of the presphenoid, and there is a slender ridge continued from each paroccipital to the lateral angles of the platform, the posterior angles being hemispheric tubercles as in Palapteryx.

The occipital region inclines forwards as it rises, while the same is more vertical in Porphyrio. The post-frontal is broader than in Porphyrio. The chief distinction from that of Porphyrio is, however, the almost regular four-sided figure of the skull. The breadth of the anterior part is almost exactly that of the occipital region, and the extent of the sides is not much more than that of the front and back part. The parieto-frontal region of the skull is very unlike that of Porphyrio, being convex and oblong, and Notornis also lacks cerebral or hemispheric convexities. Owen gives a large number of other differences, but I refer my readers to the original article as above, pp. 366-371. I, however, must state here, as is already mentioned by Mr. Hamilton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. XXIV, p. 176, 1892, that the Dinornis skull, with which Professor Owen compared Notornis, referred by him to D. casuarinus is really that of Aptornis defossor (vide Trans. Zool. Soc. III, pl. 52, figs. 1-7), and, therefore, it is quite natural that Professor Owen found a great likeness to Dinornis in Notornis, as the skull he compared it with was really that of the Ralline Aptornis, and not the Struthious Dinornis at all.

Habitat: North Island, New Zealand.

Dr. H. O. Forbes, Trans. N.Z. Inst., discusses at length measurements of tibiae and femora of Notornis, provisionally naming the skeleton in the Otago Museum Notornis parkeri, as a new species, but I consider we must wait for confirmation till we get an associated skeleton of N. mantelli.

NOTORNIS HOCHSTETTERI A.B.M.

(Plate 34.)

Notornis Hochstetteri A. B. Meyer, Abbild. Vogelskelett, Lief. IV & V, p. 28, pl. XXXIV-XXXVII (1883—South Island, New Zealand); Zeitschr. ges. Orn. II, p. 45, pl. I (1885—figures of the bird).

Notornis mantelli (non Owen 1848!) Gould, P.Z.S. London, 1850, pl. 21; Trans. Zool. Soc. London IV, pl. 25 (1850); Gould, B. Austr. Suppl., pl. 76 (1869); Buller, B. New Zealand, pl. (1873); Sharpe, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. XXIII, p. 208 (1894).

The name Notornis mantelli having been based on a cranium and some leg-bones from the North Island, and the bones of a specimen from the South Island, showing marked differences, Dr. A. B. Meyer was fully justified in describing the latter form as different, under the name of N. hochstetteri.

According to the describer there are considerable differences in the cranial bones, but the comparison of the leg-bones shows such differences in size that these alone would be sufficient to separate the North and South Island forms. The femur of N. hochstetteri measures 109, that of N. mantelli 122, the tibia of the former 165, the tarso-metatarsus 109, the tibia of the latter 200, the tarso-metatarsus 129 mm. For further measurements see A. B. Meyer, Abbild. Vogelskelett I, p. 30.

The upper surface is olive-green with some slaty-blue shading, the quills are black with purplish blue outer webs; rectrices blackish, green on the outer webs. Head, neck, and under surface purplish blue, thighs more blackish. Under tail-coverts white, frontal plate and bill bright red, yellow towards the tip of both mandibles. Feet red.

Although this bird is evidently not extinct, a specimen having been captured as late as 1898, it seems that not many examples live at present in New Zealand, as they have been sought after a good deal, and yet only four have been taken so far, i.e., the two in the British Museum, one in the Dresden Museum, and the last-mentioned one.

Full accounts of the capture of this last specimen have been given in the Trans. New Zealand Institute, XXXI, pp. 146-150, and in Sir Walter Buller's Supplement to the Birds of New Zealand, I, pp. 66-74, where, however, the year of the capture is not mentioned, though one can guess that it must have taken place shortly before the articles on it appeared.

Habitat: Middle Island, usually called South Island, apparently nearly extinct.

NOTORNIS STANLEYI (ROWLEY).

White gallinule, Voy. of Gov. Phillip to N.S.W., p. 273, cum tab. (1789).

Porphyrio stanleyi Rowley, Orn. Misc. I, p. 36, pl. IX (1875).

Porphyrio melanotus (part.) Sharpe, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. XXIII, p. 205 (1894).

Porphyrio alba G. R. Gray, List Birds N.Z., &c., Ibis 1862, p. 214.

The first to point out the differences between the bird now in the Liverpool Museum and the specimen in Vienna was Mr. Dawson Rowley. The original description of the anonymous author of Phillip's Voyage is as follows:—

"This beautiful bird greatly resembles the purple Gallinule in shape and make, but is much superior in size, being as large as a dunghill fowl. The length from end of bill to that of the claws is two feet three inches. The bill is very stout, and the colour of it, the whole of the top of the head and the irides red; the sides of the head round the eyes are reddish, very thinly sprinkled with white feathers; the whole of the plumage is, without exception, white. The legs the colour of the bill. This species is pretty common on Lord Howe Island, Norfolk Island, and other places, and is a very tame species. The other sex, supposed to be the male, is said to have some blue on the wings."

Gray states under Porphyrio alba, in Ibis 1862, p. 214: "It is stated that a similar kind was found on Lord Howe Island which was incapable of flight. The wings of the male were beautifully mottled with blue."

Dr. H. O. Forbes, in the Bulletin of the Liverpool Museums, Vol. III, No. 2, pp. 62-68 (1901), gives an exhaustive account of Rowley's type, in which he comes to the conclusion that the bird is not a Porphyrio but a Notornis, and that it is also probably a specimen of Notornis alba. That it is a Notornis I equally believe; but I think the length of the wing-coverts in the type of N. alba, puts it out of the question that the two birds could be the same. Moreover, the two original pictures of Phillip and White show this difference of the wings very well. I have therefore kept the two separate, and I feel sure if we had other specimens with exact data we should find this a parallel case to that of Nesonetta aucklandica of the Auckland Islands and Anas chlorotis of New Zealand, and that Notornis alba of Norfolk Island was a still further degenerate form to the already flightless N. stanleyi of Lord Howe Island. Wing nine inches.

Habitat: Lord Howe Island.

NOTORNIS ALBA (WHITE).

(Plate 33.)

? White gallinule Callam, Voy. Botany Bay (1783?) (teste Gray).

Fulica alba White, Journ. Voy. N.S.W., p. 238 and plate (1790).

Gallinula alba Latham, Ind. Orn. I, p. 768 (1790).

Porphyrio albus Temminck, Man. d'Orn. II, p. 701 (1820).

Porphyrio melanotus var. alba Gray, Voy. Ereb. and Terror, Birds, p. 19 (1844).

Porphyrio melanotus Gray, Voy. Ereb. and Terror, Ed. II (1846), p. 14.

Notornis ? alba Pelzeln, Sitz. k. Akad. Wiss. Wien. XLI, p. 328 (1860).

Notornis alba Salvin, Ibis 1873, p. 295, pl. X.

There has been considerable confusion in connection with this bird and the following species, owing to the fact of White not having given any locality for the specimen on which Latham founded his Gallinula alba, and which is now in the Vienna Museum. That the Vienna specimen is really White's bird is proved because it was bought at the sale of the Leverian Museum, and White expressly states that all his birds were deposited in the Leverian Museum.

It is quite impossible to say with certainty which of the two forms, Notornis alba or N. stanleyi, came from Norfolk Island, as we have no indication of the origin of the Liverpool specimen. But seeing that in the anonymous work, "The Voyage of Governor Phillip to Botany Bay," the first mentioned habitat is Lord Howe Island, and the figure shows a bird with the shorter wing-coverts of N. stanleyi, I think I am justified in taking the bird with longer wing-coverts—viz., Notornis alba, to be the bird from Norfolk Island.

White's description is as follows:—"White Fulica, with bill and front red, shoulders spined, legs and feet yellow." White's figure clearly shows the long wing coverts characteristic of the genus Notornis. Von Pelzeln says in his account of this bird that there is a label on it bearing the number 102, and giving as place of origin Norfolk Island, but White makes no mention of this. There are traces of a bluish shade, and two or three dark spots on the plumage, which has led many ornithologists to consider N. alba an albino. Gray, in "A List of Birds from New Zealand, &c.,"^[3] remarked that some Norfolk Island specimens had blue between the shoulders, and the back spotted with the same colour. He also states that the young are said to be black, then become bluish grey, and afterwards pure white. From these and other authors' similar remarks I believe we have not here a case of albinism, but a bird which was in a stage of evolution towards becoming a fixed white species. Wing 9 inches (measured by myself in the Vienna Museum).

Habitat: Norfolk Island.

APTERORNIS SELYS.

"Differed widely from Didus and Pezophaps in its long beak, which resembles a little that of a woodcock, but is much stronger. These birds were high on the leg, ran swiftly, and were far removed from pigeons like the Dodo and the Solitaire, but to which they had a certain resemblance, owing to their rudimentary wings, apology for a tail, and the disposition of their digits."

The above is a translation of de Selys-Longchamps' diagnosis of the genus, but owing to his inclusion therein of Didus solitarius and Aphanapteryx bonasia, it does not fit when restricted to the "Oyseau bleu" of Le Sieur D.B. It might be described as: Resembling Aptornis, but with shorter bill and feet, thus more approaching Notornis.

One species.

APTERORNIS COERULESCENS SELYS.

(Plate 32.)

Oyseaux bleus Le Sieur D.B., Les Voyages aux Isles Dauphine and Bourbon, pp. 170, 171 (1674).

Apterornis coerulescens Selys-Longchamps, Rev. Zool. 1848, p. 294.

The original description of the Sieur D.B. (Dubois) is as follows (translated):—"Oyseaux bleus: As big as the Solitaires; they have the plumage entirely blue, the beak and the feet red and made like those of fowls; they do not fly at all, but run extremely quickly, so that a dog can hardly catch them; they are very good."

Habitat: Bourbon or Réunion.

Dubois gives the size of these birds as the same as that of a big goose and the feet as being like those of a fowl: I have, therefore, in reconstructing the plate of this bird, had it made intermediate in structure between the New Zealand Notornis and Aptornis, which were evidently its nearest allies.

APTORNIS OWEN.

Differs from Dinornis, Palapteryx and Notornis in having an articular surface for a very strong hind toe, and the tarso-metatarsus of a conformation more nearly resembling that found in the Dodo, but shorter and thicker than in the latter. In addition, the strong calcaneal process, perforated by a complete bony canal for the tendon at the back part of the proximal end of the tarso-metatarsus; the perforation above the interspace between the condyles for the middle and outer toes; and the more posterior position for the condyle for the inner toe all prove the distinctness of this genus.

Type: Aptornis otidiformis.

APTORNIS OTIDIFORMIS (OWEN).

Dinornis otidiformis Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. III, p. 247, pls. XXV and XXVI, fig. 5 (1844).

Aptornis otidiformis Owen, ibidem p. 347 (1848).

This is the North Island form, and I must refer my readers to Owen's description, only remarking that Mr. Hamilton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. XXIV, p. 179, says the vertebrae assigned by Owen to Cnemiornis all belong to Aptornis.

Locality of type tibia: Poverty Bay, North Island, New Zealand; collected by Rev. Wm. Williams in 1842.

APTORNIS DEFOSSOR OWEN.

Aptornis defossor Owen, Trans. Zool. Soc. VII, pp. 353 to 366, pls. 40-44 (1871).

The skull differs from that of A. otidiformis by the vertical surface of the descending part of the occiput being less deeply concave, the occipital foramen relatively smaller. The hind part of the base of the alisphenoid is more produced and tuberous outside the end of the hyoid process of the paroccipital in A. defossor.

The chief other differences in size, according to Owen, are as follows:—

A. defossor. A. otidiformis.

Skull.

Length 7.2 inches. 6.2 inches.

Breadth across paroccipitals 3.3 " 2.9 "

Breadth across postfrontals 3.2 " 2.10 "

Breadth across temporal fossae 2.3 " 1.1 "

Breadth of base of upper mandible 1.6 " 1.3 "

Breadth of middle of upper mandible 1.4 " 1.1 "

Breadth of fore end of upper mandible 0.7 " 0.6 "

Length of premaxillary 5.0 " 4.3 "

Femur.

Length 7.6 " 6.2 "

Breadth of proximal end 2.2 " 1.9 "

Breadth of distal end 2.2 " 1.9 "

Circumference of middle of shaft 2.9 " 2.3 "

Tibia.

Length 10.3 " 8.9 "

Breadth of proximal end 2.3 " 1.9 "

Breadth of distal end 1.10 " 1.3 "

Circumference of middle of shaft 2.6 " 1.11 "

Metatarsus.

Length 4.4 " 3.10 "

Breadth of proximal end 1.8 " 1.5 "

Breadth of distal end 1.9 " 1.6 "

Breadth of middle of shaft 1.6 " 1.4 "

Locality of type: Oamaru.

Habitat: South Island.

A nearly perfect skeleton in the Tring Museum, collected by Mr. W. S. Mitchel in limestone cave on Oreti River, Southland.

PALAEOLIMNAS FORBES.

Differs from Fulica by the much more curved shape of the skull, the deeply marked glandular impressions over the eyes, and the great pneumaticity of the frontal bones.

PALAEOLIMNAS CHATHAMENSIS (FORBES).

Fulica chathamensis H. O. Forbes, Nature, vol. XLVI p. 252 (1892).

Fulica newtoni H. O. Forbes, l.c. (non Milne-Edwards).

Palaeolimnas newtoni H. O. Forbes, Ibis 1893, p. 544.

Palaeolimnas chathamensis Milne Edwards, Ann. Sci. Nat. (VIII) 2, 1896 p. 130.

Dr. Forbes says in Nature "I procured from the same beds which contained Aphanapteryx a certain number of bones of a Fulica which much resemble those of Fulica newtoni; like the bones of Aphanapteryx (should be Diaphorapteryx, W.R.) they vary much in size, some being equal to, while others were considerably larger than similar bones of Fulica newtoni. This variation is so great that I am inclined to consider them as belonging to different species, or at least different races. I have given the name Fulica chathamensis" to the larger species.

Later, in the Ibis, Dr. Forbes says, "The limb-bones and pelvis correspond so closely to those of F. newtoni that I am not able to separate them. The head of the type is, however, unknown."

Professor Milne-Edwards, however, points out numerous differences. In the humerus the sub-trochanterial groove is bigger, and particularly wider than in typical Fulica. The iliac grooves are larger than in Fulica newtoni, the pelvic knob is more extended, and the sciatic foramen is larger. The first sacral vertebrae are stunted below the median sinus, while in the Mauritius species one observes a very stout one, occupying the four first vertebrae of the pelvis. The feet were also larger and stronger than in the latter.

Habitat: Chatham Islands.

An almost complete skeleton and numerous bones in the Tring Museum, and an almost complete skeleton in the British Museum.

PALAEOLIMNAS NEWTONI (MILNE-EDWARDS).

Poules d'eau Sieur D.B., Voyages 1674.

Fulica newtoni Milne-Edwards, Ann. Sci. Nat. (5) VIII pp. 194-220, pls. 10-13 (1867).

The translation of the Sieur D.B.'s (Abbé Dubois) description is as follows:—"Waterhens which are as large as fowls. They are always black, and have a large white crest on the head." For the anatomical description I must refer my readers to Professor Milne-Edwards.

Habitat: Bourbon.

Milne-Edwards gives so many details in which Fulica newtoni agrees with Palaeolimnas chathamensis that I feel convinced that the former is not a true Fulica, and, until we know its skull and can decide for certain, I think it is best to include it in the genus Palaeolimnas. 16 tibiae, 30 metatarsi, 8 humeri, 2 sternums, 4 fragments and an entire pelvis and sacrum, and 3 cervical vertebrae in the Tring Museum.

PALAEOLIMNAS PRISCA (HAMILTON).

Fulica prisca Hamilton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. XXV, p. 98 (1893).

This bird was nearly as large as Notornis, but with a very small head and with a frontal shield. It was probably a poor flier, though not flightless, as Fulica chathamensis was. It was smaller than the latter. Measurements, according to Hamilton:—

prisca. newtoni. chathamensis.

Femur: Length 78-93 mm. — 85 mm.

Tibio-tarsus: Length 143-162 " 144 mm. 152-163 "

Tarso-metatarsus: Length 81-98 " 88 " 96 "

Habitat: Middle Island, New Zealand.

LEGUATIA SCHLEGEL.

Body not larger than that of a goose; wings rather short but still fitted for flight; feathers of the legs reaching down almost to the top of the tarso-metatarsus; toes long and completely free, middle toe almost as long as tarso-metatarsus. Bill with a naked shield reaching back beyond the eye. Height about 6 feet.

LEGUATIA GIGANTEA SCHLEGEL.

(Plate 31.)

Le Géant Leguat, Voyages (1708), p. 171, English edition.

Leguatia gigantea Schlegel, Versl. Med. Akad. Wetensch. Amst. VII, p. 142 (1858).

Leguat's description is as follows: "... and many of those birds called giants, because they are six feet high. They are extremely high mounted, and have very long necks. Their bodies are not bigger than that of a goose. They are all white, except a little place under their wings, which is reddish. They have a goose's bill, only a little sharper; their claws are very long and divided." This bird was apparently confined to the island of Mauritius.

Professor Newton asserts that Leguat's "Géants" were Flamingos, principally because bones of Flamingos have been found in Mauritius and not a single bone has ever been got of the "géant." This argument is, in my opinion, insufficient, and no evidence at all. We know that a Didine bird and a gigantic rail existed on Réunion, but no bones are yet known of these. I think, like Professor Schlegel, that Leguat's figure and description cannot be meant for a Flamingo and that they prove the former existence of a gigantic ralline bird in Mauritius.

The figure is made up from Leguat's description. The bill is drawn like that of a gigantic moorhen, and so are the feet.

Habitat: Mauritius.

ALCA IMPENNIS L.

THE GREAT AUK.

(Plate 38.)

Penguin Hore, in Hakluyt's Coll. Voyages III p. 129 (Ed. 1600—ex Hore).

Anser Magelanicus s. Pinguinus Worm, Museum Wormianum, Lib. III, Cap. 19, p. 300, 301 (1655—Figured from a specimen from the Faröe Islands).

Penguin Willoughby, Orn. Lib. III p. 242 pl. 65 (1676).

Northern Penguin Edwards, Nat. Hist. Uncommon B. etc., III p. 147 pl. 147 (1750—First good coloured plate, from a specimen from Newfoundland).

Geyervogel Linnaeus, Fauna Suecica p. 43 no. 119 (1746).

Alca impennis Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. Ed. X p. 130 (1758—Ex fauna Sueciva no. 119, Mus. Worm. l.c., Willoughby l.c., and Edwards l.c.); Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. Ed. XII, I, p. 210 (1766); Naumann, Nat. Voy. Deutschl. XII p. 630 pl. 337 (1844); Dresser, B. Europe VIII p. 563, pl. 620 (1880); Seebohm, Hist. Brit. B. III p. 371 (1885).

Alca borealis Forster, Syn. Cat. Brit. B. p. 29 (1817—nomen nudum).

Plautus impennis Brünnich, Zool. Fundamenta p. 78 (1772); Baird, Brewer and Ridgway, Water Birds N. Amer., II p. 467 (1884); Grant, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. XXVI p. 563 (1898).

FOR FULL DESCRIPTIONS, LITERATURE, HISTORY, LIST OF REMAINS, SEE:—

Japetus Steenstrup: Bidrag til Geirfuglens Naturhistorie etc., Kjöbenhavn (Copenhagen) 1857 (In Naturh-Forening. Vidensk. Meddel. 1855, nos. 3-7).

Alfred Newton: Abstract of Mr. Wolley's Researches in Iceland respecting the Gare-fowl. (In Ibis, 1861, pp. 374-399).

William Preyer: Ueber Plautus impennis. (In Journal f. Orn. 1862 pp. 110-124, 337-356.)

Alfred Newton: The Gare-fowl and its Historians. (In Natural History Review XII, 1865 pp. 467-488); id. in Encycl. Britannica Ed. IX vol. III; id. Dict. B. p. 220-221.

Wilhelm Blasius: Zur Geschichte von Alca impennis. Journ. f. Orn. 1884 pp. 58-176.

Symington Grieve: The Great Auk, or Garefowl. Its History, Archaeology, and Remains. London 1885; Supplem. note on the Great Auk; in Trans. Edinburgh Field Nat. Soc. (1897) p. 238-273.

Wilhelm Blasius: Der Riesenalk, Alca impennis L. (In the New Edition of Naumann Naumann, Naturg. d. Vögel Mitteleuropas) Vol. XII p. 169-208, plates 17, 17a-17d (1903).

Probably the first mention of Great Auks is that in André Thevet's book "Les singularitéz de la France antarctique ...," Anvers 1558, where a large bird was mentioned under the name of "Aponars," Apponatz or "Aponath." But evidently this name covered several other sea-birds, and it is at least doubtful if it was solely applied to the Great Auk. The same applies to the remarks by Jacques Cartier, as translated in R. Hakluyt's collection of voyages. On the other hand there is no doubt that the "Penguin" mentioned by Robert Hore in 1536 (Hakluyt, Collection of Voyages III, p. 129—1600, and other Editions) was actually the Great Auk. In fact "Penguin" has been the name usually applied to the Great Auk and is even now used for it by the French, while in most other languages it has been transferred, from an early date, to the Antarctic flightless birds, the Spheniscidae.

All the first reports are from Newfoundland and thereabout, and even Clusius (Exoticorum libri decem, Lib. V, p. 103—1605), who gives a rather poor but perfectly recognizable figure, describes it first (p. 103) as a native of America, under the name of "Mergus Americanus." Later on, however, in the "Auctarium," on p. 367, he mentions it, on the authority of Henricus Hojerus, as found in the Faröe Islands, under the name "Goirfugel." Hojerus was also the authority for the account given in Nieremberg, Hist. Nat., etc., p. 215 (1635). The first comparatively good figure was published in 1655, in the "Museum Wormianum," on p. 301, from a specimen brought alive from the Faröe Islands. Curiously enough the figure shows a white ring round the neck, which no Great Auk, of course, possesses.

Linnaeus, when first bestowing a scientific name on the Great Auk, in 1758, l.c., gave the following short diagnosis and references:—

"Alca rostro compresso—ancipiti sulcato, macula ovata utrinque ante oculos. Fn. Svec. 119.

Anser magellanicus. Worm. mus. 300 t. 301.

Penguin. Will. ornith. 244 t. 65 Edw. av. 147 t. 147.

Habitat in Europa arctica."

From referring to the literature he quotes, there can, of course, be no doubt as to what species he refers.

The most detailed descriptions are probably those given in the New Edition of Naumann (see above), where also a list of literature and figures is given, fully seven folio pages long! As regards the difference in the sexes little is known, because very few specimens exist of which the sex has been ascertained. We find, however, some with the grooves and ridges on the bill more marked, and the grooves purer white, while others have the grooves of a dirtier white and less strongly developed; as these latter are apparently mostly smaller, I think they must be females, the former males. In this case my two specimens would be females, and the one now in Professor Koenig's possession an adult male. Probably somewhat similar seasonal changes took place as in Alca torda, and Professor Blasius (l.c.) has described them. It must, however, be remembered, that the date of capture is known of but a few examples, and that by far the majority of all those that exist in collections have been killed in spring, on their breeding-places.

Nobody can doubt that the Great Auk is extinct. The last specimens were obtained on Eldey, near Iceland, in 1844, and the seas and islands where the great bird used to live are frequented by vessels every year. It is true that a certain Lorenz Brodtkorb told that in April, 1848, he saw four Great Auks, of which he shot one, near the Varanger Fjord, east of the North-Cape, but Professor Newton and Wolley have, in 1855, had an interview with Brodtkorb, and came to the conclusion that he saw and shot the Great Northern Diver. This is the more likely to be the case, as the occurrence north of the Arctic Circle is as yet uncertain, the finding of Great Auks both on the island of Disco (west-coast of Greenland) and on Grimsey and Mevenklint on the north coast of Iceland being open to doubt.

From sub-fossil and prehistoric finds, we know that the Great Auk formerly inhabited Norway and Sweden, Denmark, with Seeland, Sejerö and Havnö, the British Islands (Cleadon Hills in County Durham, Scotland, Ireland), the east coast of North America from Labrador to Florida.

In historic times we know of the occurrence on the islands near Labrador, Greenland—where it certainly used to breed on the east coast, but was probably only of rare and exceptional occurrence on the west coast—Iceland, the Faröe Islands, Fair Island between the Orkney and Shetland Islands (doubtful), Orkneys (Papa Westra), St. Kilda, Skye, and Waterford Harbour in Ireland. But as breeding stations within historic times the following only are absolutely certain:—

While we know of regular occurrence and may assume that the bird has been breeding on the north and west side of Newfoundland, and in east Greenland (opposite Iceland).

The remains of the Great Auk and its eggs in collections are more numerous than one would think, considering the enormous prices paid for mounted specimens and eggs. There are at present known 79 or 80 skins, 26 or 27 skeletons, a great quantity of detached bones, and about 73 eggs.

I HAVE IN MY MUSEUM:

1. One adult female, formerly in the collection of the late Comte de Riocour at Vitry-le-François, in France. I bought this specimen from the late Alphonse Boucard, together with the bulk of the birds of the Riocour collection. It is evidently an adult female, having the white lines on the bill not very much developed, and showing a distinct grey tinge on the flanks. This shade is present in both my Great Auks; the feathers of the flanks, just under the wing, are nearly white, with a conspicuous, very light grey border. This grey tinge is present in all females, but appears to be absent in adult males. My bird is apparently in worn breeding plumage. As it was not very well mounted and the feet slightly damaged, I had it reduced to a "skin."

2. Another adult female. I purchased this from Mr. Rowland Ward, who had it from Mr. Leopold Field in London, in 1897. According to a letter, dated Paris le 20 Jan., 1890, written by the late A. Boucard, who sold it in that year to Mr. Field, the history is as follows: "This bird was captured in Iceland in 1837, did first belong to Mr. Eimbeck of Brunswick and afterwards in the collection of Mr. Bruch from Mayence." We must accept this information by the late A. Boucard as correct, though it is difficult to understand that in the most painstaking and exact list of remains of the Great Auk, by Prof. Wilhelm Blasius of Braunschweig, or anywhere else, no mention is made of a specimen in the possession of the late Eimbeck, or the late Bruch. Moreover, we have no explanation where this Auk has been between the time of Bruch's death and 1890, when Boucard sold it to Mr. Field in London.

This specimen has been described as "immature," but this is a mistake. Evidently it arose from some white speckles being visible on the neck in the photograph (see Symington Grieve, Trans. Edinburgh Field Nat. and Micros. Society, explanation to plate III, on page 269). The specimen itself, however, shows no white speckles, but only worn feathers, out of which the illusion arose in the photograph. This error has also been transferred to the admirable treatise on the Great Auk in the New Edition of Naumann. The grey shade "on the body lower than the wing," mentioned by Mr. Symington Grieve, is not a sign of immaturity, but appears in all adult females, though it is said to be absent in males.

Some years ago an extraordinary rumour was current in Germany about the Great Auk in the Brehm collection; it was said to have been exchanged by the widow of Pastor C. L. Brehm for a rare Dresden cup, and that its present resting-place was unknown. I do not know who invented this story, or how it arose, but suffice it to say, that the Auk which was in the Brehm collection was sold to the late King of Italy, in 1868 or 1869. The business was concluded by Dr. Otto Finsch, and the money was used for the benefit of a brother of the late Dr. A. E. Brehm, as it had been the wish of his father, Pastor Brehm. The specimen was re-stuffed by the late taxidermist Schwerdtfeger in Bremen and forwarded to a professor in Florence. It was kept for years at the "Veneria Reale," and recently, when the collection at that castle was dissolved, was placed in the Museum at Rome. It is one of the finest Great Auks known.

AESTRELATA CARIBBAEA (CARTE).

(Plate 37.)

Procellaria jamaicensis Bancroft, Zoological Journal V, p. 81 (1835—Nomen nudum!).

Pterodroma caribbaea Carte, P.Z.S. 1866, p. 93, pl. 10 ("Blue Mountains in insula Jamaica").

Aestrelata caribbaea Giglioli & Salvadori, Ibis 1869, p. 66.

Fulmarus caribbaeus Gray, Handlist B. III, p. 107 (1871).

Aestrelata jamaicensis Ridgway, Man. N. Am. B., p. 67; Cory, Cat. West-Indian B., p. 84 (1892).

Oestrelata jamaicensis Salvin, Cat. B. Brit. Mus, p. 403 (1896).

It is surprising that the name jamaicensis has generally been adopted for this species, as Bancroft gave no description whatever. The first description is that of Carte, in 1866, which is as follows:—"Head, neck, back, and wings of a uniform dark sooty brown; vertex and external webs of the primaries a shade or so darker; abdominal feathers and under tail-coverts a shade or two lighter than those of the back; upper tail-coverts and basal portion of tail-feathers of a light grey or dirty white. The light-coloured patch on the rump is conspicuous when the wings are expanded, but completely concealed when they are closed. Irides dark hazel. Tarsi, toes, webs, and nails jet-black.

"Length about 12¾ inches; expanse of wings 34 inches; length from carpal joint to tip of first primary 10¾ inches; length of bill, measured from gape, 1⅝ inches; length of nasal tubes 5⁄16 inch; length of interval between nostrils and commencement of apical curve of upper mandible ¼ inch; length of tarsi 15⁄10 inches; length of toes, outer and middle, sub-equal 2 inches; length of inner toe 1⅝ inches. First and second primaries sub-equal, and about ½ inch longer than the third. Tail about 4½ inches long and round at extremity. The closed wings extend about 1½ inches beyond the tail. Hallux small, and in shape triangular."

"With respect to the habits of the bird, Mr. March has most kindly furnished me with the following interesting details:—

"It is a night-bird, living in burrows in the marly clefts of the mountains at the east and north-east end of the island. The burrows form a gallery 6 to 10 feet long, terminating in a chamber sufficiently commodious to accommodate the pair; from this they sally forth at night, flying over the sea in search of food (fishes), returning before dawn. It is often seen on moonlight nights and at sunrise running about the neighbourhood of its domicile, and sometimes crossing the road, regardless of the labourers going to their work. I know nothing of its nidification."

The type of "Pterodroma caribbaea" is preserved in the Dublin Museum, and three specimens are in the British Museum. This bird is one of the rarest in collections, and all modern collectors have failed to obtain specimens. Quite recently (1906) Mr. B. Hyatt Verrill published a pamphlet entitled "Additions to the Avifauna of Dominica." In this unpaginated essay he said under the heading "Aestrelata jamaicensis": "Not uncommon (on Dominica), but seldom seen during the day. Breeds at La Bime, Pointe Guignarde, and Lance Bateaux, as well as at Morne Rouge and Scott's Head. In many of the above localities the musky odour of these birds is very pronounced when passing the cliffs, wherein they breed, on a calm evening. At dusk they may often be seen flying about the cliffs in company with myriads of bats that spend the day in the fissures and crevices. They are very difficult to procure, and although shot at repeatedly only two specimens have been obtained."

From all former evidence we might have well considered this species to be extinct, but if Mr. Verrill's statement is correct it would be far from exterminated. I do not, however, know if the Dominica specimens have been compared with Jamaica examples, and if Mr. Verrill's determination (apparently made on Dominica) is therefore correct.

Habitat: Jamaica.

AESTRELATA HASITATA (KUHL).

Procellaria hasitata (sic) Kuhl, Beitr. z. Zool. Temminck, Pl. Col. 416 (1826); Gould, B Australia VII, pl. 47 (1845).

Procellaria diabolica Lafresnaye, Rev. Zool. 1844, p. 168.

Procellaria meridionalis Lawrence, Ann. Lyceum N.Y. IV, p. 475 (1848— ), V, pl. 15, p. 220 (1852).

Procellaria rubritarsi Newton, Zoologist 1852, p. 3692 (ex Gould's MS., descr. nulla).

Aestrelata haesitata Bonaparte, Compt. Rend. XLII, p. 768 (1856), Elliot, B. N. America II. pl. 60, fig. 1 (1868); Rothsch. & Hart, New Edition of "Naumann" XII, p. 20 (1903).

Aestrelata diabolica Bonap., Consp. Av. II, p. 189 (1855).

Oestrelata haesitata Newton, Ibis 1870, p. 277; Dresser, B. Europe VIII, p. 545, pl. 618 (1880); Stevens, B. of Norfolk, III, p. 361, pl. 4 (1890); Salvin, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. XXV, p. 403 (1896).

Mr. Saunders describes this bird as follows: "The adult has the crown and nape dark brown, hind-neck white, cheeks and ear-coverts greyish; mantle dark brown; upper tail-coverts white; central tail-feathers chiefly brownish-black, the rest more or less white on their basal portions but broadly edged with brown; forehead and under-parts white; bill black; legs and feet dusky-yellow. Length 16 inches, wing 11.3 inches. The immature bird is believed to be mottled with brown on the forehead and to be duller in tint on the upper parts."

Though evidently not quite extinct, it seems certain that the fate of this bird is sealed. In former times it used to breed in great numbers on several of the West Indian Islands: Hayti, Guadeloupe, and Dominica. Its last breeding place was the Morne au Diable or Morne Diablotin on Dominica. There it was searched for in vain by Colonel Feilden, in 1889, who wrote a lengthy article about it in the "Trans. Norfolk and Norwich Nat. Society" V. p. 24-39. Mr. Selwyn Branch again, ten years later, ascended La Morne au Diable, and found the old breeding places deserted. The "Manicou," evidently an introduced North-American Opossum, Mongoose and rats had entirely extirpated the "Diable."

Two-and-a-half centuries ago Père du Tertre found this Petrel breeding on Guadeloupe, and Père Labat, about forty years later, found it in great numbers, and gave a long, graphic description of it in his "Nouveau Voyage aux isles de l'Amérique" (Edit. I, Vol. II, pp. 349-353). These birds were then known as the "Diable" or "Diablotin," and their flesh was highly esteemed, and they were even salted and exported to Martinique and other French islands in great numbers.

In 1876 Mr. F. A. Ober searched already unsuccessfully for our birds.

It seems that the disturbance and destruction on their breeding places has scattered these Petrels about, for specimens have at various times been taken on the coast of Florida and Virginia, and even as late as 1893 and 1895, inland of the State of New York on Oneida Lake, in Ulster County, Vermont and Ontario; moreover, a specimen has been killed in 1850 in Norfolk, England, and an example in the Museum of Boulogne is said to have been killed in the neighbourhood of that town.

In an undated and unpaginated pamphlet, received last year in Europe, Mr. A. Hyatt Verrill informs us that this bird is "not uncommon on the fishing grounds and in Martinique and Guadeloupe channels," and that he took a specimen in September, 1904. This statement requires confirmation.

In collections this bird is very rare. I have the male (in moult) which was caught on August 28th, 1893 on Oneida Lake, in the State of New York.

Habitat: West Indian Islands.

HEMIPHAGA SPADICEA (LATH.)

(Plate 21.)

Chestnut-shouldered Pigeon Latham, Gen. Syn. Suppl. II, add. p. 375 (1802—Norfolk Island).

Columba spadicea Latham, Ind. Orn., Suppl. p. LX, No. 7 (1802—Norfolk Island); Temminck and Knip, Pigeons, II, p. 1, pl. 1 (1808—"Friendly Islands."—Errore).

Columba gigas Ranzani, Elementi di Zool. III, 1, p. 223 (1821—"Friendly Islands."—Errore).

Columba princeps Vigors, P.Z.S. 1833, p. 78 (Australia—errore).

Columba leucogaster Wagler, Syst. Av., Columba spec. 12 (1827—Norfolk Island).

Hemiphaga spadicea Salvadori, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. XXI, p. 238 (1893).

The Norfolk Island Pigeon, Hemiphaga spadicea spadicea, is very similar to the New Zealand Pigeon, Hemiphaga spadicea novaezealandiae, but differs in having the hind-neck coppery or metallic green, sharply defined from the chestnut back, the wings and upper wing-coverts more greyish, less greenish, also the lower back and rump somewhat more greyish.

As far as we know this pigeon was only found on Norfolk Island, the locality "Australia" being doubtless erroneous. Like so many other birds it became extinct on Norfolk Island, probably more than half a century ago.

There are evidently quite a number of specimens in various museums, many of which have never been recorded. I am aware of the following examples:

The specimen at Tring was bought at the auction of the "Cumberland Museum" at Distington.

ALECTROENAS NITIDISSIMA (SCOP.)

(Plate 22.)

Pigeon hollandais Sonnerat, Voy. Ind. Orient. II, p. 175, pl. 101 (1782).

Hackled Pigeon Latham, Syn. B. II, 2, p. 641, No. 36 (1783).

Columba nitidissima Scopoli, Del. Flor. and Faun. Insubr. II, p. 93, No. 89 (1786) (ex Sonnerat).

Columba franciae Gmelin, Syst. Nat. I, 2, p. 779, No. 51 (1788). (ex Sonnerat).

Columba botanica Bonnaterre, Enc. Méth. I, p. 233 (1790).

Ramier périssé Levaillant, Ois. d'Afr. VI, p. 74, pl. 267 (1808).

Columba jubata Wagler, Syst. Av., Columba, sp. 22 (1827).

Alectroenas nitidissima G. R. Gray, List Gen. B., p. 58 (1840).

Alectroenas franciae Reichenbach, Syn. Av., Columbariae, p. 2, f. 1302 (1847).

Columbigallus franciae Des Murs, Encycl. d'Hist. Nat., Ois. VI., p. 31, (1854?).

Ptilopus nitidissimus Schlegel and Pollen, Rech. Faun. Madag., p. 159 (1868).

Alectroenas nitidissimus G. R. Gray, Hand-list II, p. 228, No. 9164 (1870).

Alectoroenas nitidissimus A. Newton, P. Z. S. 1879, pp. 2-4.

Sonnerat's original description, translated into English, is as follows: "It is much larger than the European Woodpigeon; the feathers of the head, neck and breast are long, narrow, and end in a point. These feathers are rather curiously constructed, they have the polish, brilliancy, and feel of a cartilaginous blade. I could not, with the aid of a lens, distinguish whether these blades were formed by the conglomeration of the barbules, but we may take it for granted that they are constituted in a like manner to the wing appendages of the Bohemian Waxwing and the cartilaginous blades of Sonnerat's Jungle Fowl. The eye is surrounded by naked skin of a deep red; the back, the wings and the belly are of a dark blue; the rump and tail are of a very bright carmine red; the beak and iris are of the same colour, and the feet are black."

Undoubtedly quite extinct. Only three specimens are known of this bird: one in Edinburgh, one in Paris, and one in Mauritius. Some bones were collected by the Rev. H. H. Slater.

Habitat: Mauritius.

ALECTROENAS(?) RODERICANA (MILNE-EDWARDS).

Columba rodericana Milne-Edwards, Ann. Sc. Nat. (5) XIX art. 3, p. 16, pl. 12, ff. 1, 1a, 1b, 1c (1874).

The original description of the sternum is as follows:—"It belongs to a species small in size, barely as large as T. tympanistria, but evidently much better built for flight. In fact the most striking characters of this sternum are the large size of the bouclier, the large size of the lateral notches, and the shape of the keel, whose anterior angle is not much produced in front. The coracoidal grooves are large and only slightly oblique. The lateral branches detach themselves from the bone in front of the costal facets—they are very widely spread, and stretch more directly outwards than in the remainder of the species of the family. The lower lateral branches are equally divergent, and the median blade of the posterior edge is remarkable from its enlargement. The keel is moderately prominent, its anterior angle is much rounded, and does not reach the level of the episternal apophysis, as is the case, as a rule, in the pigeons. All these peculiarities, to which must be added the general flattening of the bone which is hardly at all sloped like a roof, separate the pigeon of Rodriguez very widely, not only from Erythroena and Turtur, but also from Vinago. In its shape in general, by the little pronounced keel and the direction of the latter, this sternum presents certain analogies to the essentially arboreal species such as those of the genus Carpophaga, but they all differ in having the space for the costal facets on the sides of the sternum much more extended, the superior lateral branches larger, and the latter arising further back, so that the lateral notches are smaller. Up to the present I do not know any genus of the family of Columbidae in which the sternum can at all be likened to that found recently in Rodriguez, and therefore in all probability this fossil remainder is of yet another vanished species, which I propose to call Columba rodericana." (Translated.)

It is probable that Milne-Edwards's C. rodericana belonged to the genus Alectroenas, and was the representative on Rodriguez of the Alectroenas nitidissima of Mauritius. 1 humerus in the Tring Museum.

Habitat: Rodriguez.

NESOENAS SALVAD.

Soles normal, not very broad, only the hind toe with the skin prominently expanded on the sides. First primary about equal to the sixth. Tail entirely rufous, composed of twelve feathers.

NESOENAS MAYERI (PREVOST).

(Plate 3, Fig. 3.)

Columba mayeri Prévost & Knip, Pigeons II, pl. 60 (1843).

Columba meyeri Schlegel & Pollen, Rech. Faun. Mad. p. 111, pl. 36 (1868).

Peristera meyeri G. R. Gray, Gen. B. III App. p. 24 (1849).

Carpophaga meyeri G. R. Gray, fide Bp. Consp. Av. II p. 45 (1854).

Trocaza meyeri Bonaparte, Consp. Av. II p. 45 (1854).

Trocaza meijeri Pollen, N.T.D. I p. 318 (1863).

Nesoenas mayeri Salvadori, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. vol. XXI p. 327 (1893).

The following is the description by Salvadori in the "Catalogue of Birds":—"Head, neck and underparts pale pink, fading into whitish towards the forehead, cheeks and upper throat, and passing into rather darker pink on the mantle; remainder of the upper back and the entire wings brown, with a slight shade of olive and rufous; lower back and rump greyish, the latter mottled with chestnut; upper tail coverts and tail cinnamon, the outer tail feathers fading into buff on the outer webs and towards the tips; undertail-coverts pink, like the mantle; undersurface of the wings ashy brown, slightly pale on the axillaries, and under wing-coverts iris yellow; bill yellow, shaded with red towards the base; legs red (fide Shelley). Total length about 15.5 inches, wing 8.5, tail 6.5, bill 0.86, tarsus 1.3."

In the live bird the pink soon fades away almost entirely, and the olive shade on the wings is strongly developed.

This bird was not found by the Rev. H. H. Slater, during his visit to Mauritius. As observed by Mons. Paul Carié (Ornis XII, p. 127), the idea that it is extinct is, however, incorrect, as it can still easily be procured, though it is rare. M. Georges Antelme, of Mauritius, possesses the eggs of this pigeon. That it still exists is also evident from two specimens which were sent to the Zoological Gardens, London, last year, and are still living there.

Habitat: Mauritius.

NESOENAS DUBOISI SP. NOV.

Pigeons sauvages d'un rouge roussastre Le Sieur D.B., Voyages aux Iles Dauphine ou Madagascar, etc., p. 171 (1674—Bourbon).

Talking of Wild Pigeons, "Le Sieur D.B." tells us that there were on the island of Bourbon "others of a russet red colour, a little larger than European pigeons, with the beak larger, red at base near the head, the eyes surrounded by a fiery colour, as in the pheasants. At a certain season they are so fat 'qu'on ne leur voit point de croupion;' they taste very good."

This passage cannot be meant for a turtle-dove, but the description of the bill and surrounding of the eyes shows that it refers to a form allied to Nesoenas mayeri. The latter, however, is not entirely russet red, but the head, neck, underside and back are creamy white, washed with a greyish-rose colour. Therefore the bird mentioned by Le Sieur D.B. was evidently a representative of N. mayeri or Bourbon. I name it in memory of Monsieur Dubois, who was the author of the Voyages of the "Sieur D.B."

Habitat: Bourbon or Réunion.

ECTOPISTES SWAINS.

Ectopistes Swainson, Zoological Journal III p. 362 (1827—Partim! Columba speciosa and C. migratoria mentioned as types, but ten years later the genus Ectopistes was restricted to C. migratoria by the same author).

Tail very long and excessively cuneate, the central rectrices sharply pointed. First primary of the wing longest. Tarsus very short, in front half covered with feathers. Now, only the Passenger Pigeon is included in this genus, while formerly the Zenaidura carolinensis auct. used to be associated with it.

ECTOPISTES MACROURA (L.)

PASSENGER PIGEON.

Columba macroura Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. Ed. X p. 164 (1758—Ex Catesby, Carolina I p. 23, pl. 23 [1754]. "Habitat in Canada, hybernat in Carolina." Regarding the necessity of accepting this name see Bangs, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington XIX p. 42, and Auk 1906, pp. 474, 475. The conclusions of Messrs. Bangs and Allen are perfectly correct).

Columba canadensis Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. Ed. XII, p. 284 (1766—Ex Brisson, Orn. I p. 118. Habitat in Canada. Cf. note of Salvadori, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. XXI, p. 369).

Columba migratoria Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. Ed. XII p. 285 (Ex Frisch, pl. 142, Kalm., Brisson I, p. 100, Catesby. "Habitat in America Septentrionali copiosissima ..."); Wilson, Amer. Orn. I p. 102, pl. XLIX (1808); Temminck & Knip, Pigeons I, seconde fam., pls. 48, 49 (1808-11); Audubon, Orn. Biogr. I, p. 319 (1831); Baird, Brewer & Ridgway, Hist. N.A.B., Land-Birds III, p. 368, pl. 57, 4 (1874).

Pigeon de Passage Buffon, Hist. Nat. Ois. II, p. 527 (1771).

Tourterelle du Canada Daubenton, Pl. Enl. 176.

Columba Histrio P.L.S. Müller, Natursyst. Suppl. p. 134 (1776—ex Buffon).

Columba ventralis id., l.c. p. 134 (1776—ex Buffon).

Ectopistes migratoria Swainson, Zool. Journal III, p. 362 (1827); Gould, B. Europe, pl. 247 (1848); Coues, B. North-West, p. 387 (1874); Maynard, B. E. North America, p. 335 (1881).

Trygon migratoria Brehm, Handb. Naturg. Vög. Deutschl., p. 495 (1831).

Ectopistes migratorius G. R. Gray, Gen. B. II, p. 471 (1844); Brewster, Auk 1889, pp. 286-291; Bendire, Life-History N. Amer. B., p. 132; Salvadori, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. XXI, p. 370; Proc. Delaware Valley Ornith. Club II, p. 17 (1898); A.O.U. Check-List (Ed. II) p. 120, No. 315 (1895); Wintle, B. Montreal, p. 51 (1896); Minot, B. New England, p. 395 (1895); Auk 1903, p. 66.

Trygon gregaria Brehm, Vogelfang, p. 258 (1855).

It is true that Linnaeus' diagnosis of his Columba macroura is very short, reading, as it does, as follows: "Columba cauda cuneiformi longa, pectore purpurascente." These words, however, are clearly taken from Catesby, who gives an excellent figure and description, as is also the "Habitat," viz.: Habitat in Canada, hybernat in Carolina, though Linnaeus first quotes Edwards 15, pl. 15, where an entirely different bird is described and figured. (Cf. Bangs, l.c.)

The Passenger Pigeon in former times occurred throughout North America in great abundance, from the Atlantic to the great Central Plains, and from the Southern States, where it rarely occurred, north to at least 62° northern latitude. Being a migrant, this bird used to migrate southwards after the breeding season, and to return to their homes in spring, but it also shifted its quarters according to the abundance or scarcity of food, like our Pigeons. Sometimes incredible numbers flocked together. Such stupendous flights have been described independently by Audubon, Wilson and others. In 1813 Audubon says that during his whole journey from Hardensburg to Louisville, fifty-five miles, countless masses of Pigeons continued to pass over, and also did so during the three following days. "At times they flew so low, that multitudes were destroyed, and for many days the entire population seemed to eat nothing else but Pigeons." Where they roosted in millions, the dung soon covered the ground and destroyed the grass and undergrowth, limbs and even small trees broke down from the weight of the birds. "One of the breeding places visited by Wilson, not far from Shelbyville, Kentucky, stretched through the forest in nearly a north and south direction. This was several miles in breadth, and upwards of forty miles in extent. In this immense tract nearly every tree was furnished with nests wherever there were branches to accommodate them. He was informed by those who sought to plunder the nests of the squabs, that the noise in the woods was so great as to terrify their horses, and that it was difficult for one person to hear another speak. The ground was strewed with broken limbs, eggs and young Pigeons. Hawks were sailing about in great numbers, while from twenty feet upwards to the tops of the trees there was a perpetual tumult of crowding and fluttering multitudes of Pigeons, their wings resounding like thunder, and mingled with the frequent crash of falling trees. In one instance he counted ninety nests in a single tree."

It is only natural that man took advantage of such vast multitudes, and that they were killed in great numbers, for food, and, maybe, sometimes wantonly destroyed. Yet it is difficult to understand what brought on their total destruction, as their power of flight was great, and their vision remarkably keen. In 1874 Messrs. Baird, Brewer and Ridgway considered them still common birds, though "their abundance in large extents of the country had been very sensibly reduced." At that time "in the New England States and in the more cultivated part of the country, these birds no longer bred in large communities. The instance near Montpelier, in 1849, is the only marked exception that has come within my knowledge. They now breed in isolated pairs, their nests being scattered through the woods and seldom near one another." In 1895, in the A.O.U. check-list, the authors say: "Breeding range now mainly restricted to portions of the Canadas and the northern borders of the United States, as far west as Manitoba and the Dakotas."

At the present time the Passenger Pigeon seems to have entirely disappeared, a small flock in an aviary apparently being all that is left of it alive. Mr. James H. Fleming, of Toronto, kindly sends me the following notes, which I think are of the greatest interest:—

"The disappearance of the Passenger Pigeon in Ontario dates back at least forty years, though as late as 1870 some of the old roosts were still frequented, but the incredible flocks, of which so much has been said, had gone long before that date, and by 1880 the pigeon was practically exterminated, not only in Ontario, but over the greater part of its old range. There are however occasional records of birds taken, for some years later. An immature bird taken September 9, 1887, in Chester County, Pennsylvania, is said to be the last for that part of the State^[4]; a bird, also immature, is in my collection, taken in December, 1888, at Montreal, Quebec. There are other Montreal records of the same date,^[5] but with the exception of one taken at Tadousac, July 26, 1889,^[6] these are the last Quebec records of birds actually taken. In Ontario two were taken at Toronto in 1890, on September 20, and October 11, both immature females, the latter is in my collection, as is an adult female taken by Mr. Walter Brett, at Riding Mountain, Manatoba, May 12, 1892, one of a pair seen. I also have an adult male taken at Waukegon, Illinois, December 19, 1892. I was in New York in the latter part of November, 1892, and was then assured by Mr. Rowland, a well known taxidermist, that he had recently seen several barrels of pigeons that had been condemned as unfit for food; they had come to New York from Indian Territory, and I believe had had their tails pulled out to permit tighter packing. Mr. William Brewster has recorded the sending of several hundred dozens of pigeons to the Boston market in December of the same year, and in January, 1893; these were also from Indian Territory^[7]; these are the last records we have of the Passenger Pigeon as anything more than a casual migrant. The records ceased after this till 1898, when three birds were taken at points widely apart, an adult male at Winnipegosis, Manatoba, on April 14,^[8] an immature male at Owensboro, Kentucky, on July 27, now in the Smithsonian Institution, and another immature bird taken at Detroit, Michigan, on September 14, now in my collection; these are the last records that can be based on specimens.

"In 1903 I published a list including sight records, one as late as May, 1902; this latter is possibly open to doubt, but the ones I gave for 1900 are, I feel confident, correct, as the birds were seen more than once and by different observers. For all practical purposes, the close of the Nineteenth Century saw the final extinction of the Passenger Pigeon in a wild state, and there remained only the small flock, numbering in 1903 not more than a dozen, that had been bred in captivity by Prof. C. O. Whitman, of Chicago; these birds are the descendants of a single pair, and have long ago ceased to breed. It was in an effort to obtain fresh blood for this flock that I started a newspaper enquiry that brought many replies, none of which could be substantiated as records of the Passenger Pigeon, and many referred to the Mourning Dove. I am aware that there has been lately wide-spread and persistent rumours of the return of the pigeons, but no rumour has borne investigation, and I feel that Prof. Whitman's small flock, now reduced (in 1906) to five birds, are the last representatives of a species around whose disappearance mystery and fable will always gather."

FAMILY DIDIDAE. (L.)

Includes very large and massively-built forms, agreeing with the Columbidae in the truncation of the angle of the mandible, but with the extremity of the cranial rostrum strongly hooked. They were totally incapable of flight, the wing-bones being small, the carina of the sternum aborted, and the caracoidal grooves shallow and separated from one another.

Two genera: Didus and Pezophaps.

DIDUS LINN.

Skull with a very large and deeply hooked rostrum, and the nasal and maxillary processes of the praemaxilla converging anteriorly; the front region inflated into a sub-conical prominence of cancellous tissue. Neck and feet shorter than in the succeeding genus. Delto-pectoral crest of humerus distinct.

Two species: Didus cucullatus and Didus solitarius.

DIDUS CUCULLATUS (L.)

DODO.

(Plates 24, 24a, 24b, 24c.)

Walchvoghel Van Neck, Voy., p. 7, pl. 2 (1601).

Walchvögel De Bry, Orient. Ind. pt. VIII, t. 11 (1606).

Gallinaceus gallus peregrinus Clusius, Exot. Libr. V p. 99 t. 100 (1605).

Dod-eersen or Valgh-vogel Herbert's travels 1st ed. (1634) t. page 212.

Cygnus cucullatus Nieremberg, Nat p. 231 (with fig. ex. Clus.) (1635).

Dronte Bontius, Ind. Orient t. p. 70 (1658).

Raphus Moehring, Av. gen. 57 (1752).

Dodo Edwards, Glean. Nat Hist. III p. 179 pl. 296 (1757).

Struthio cucullatus Linn., S. N. I p. 155 No. 4 (1758).

Didus ineptus Linn., S. N. I p. 267 No. 1 (1766).

The first description of this very remarkable bird was given in the account of the voyage of Admiral Jacob van Neck in 1598, which was published by Corneille Nicolas at Amsterdam in 1601. It is as follows:—"Blue parrots are very numerous there, as well as other birds; among which are a kind, conspicuous for their size, larger than our swans, with huge heads only half covered with skin as if clothed with a hood. These birds lack wings, in the place of which 3 or 4 blackish feathers protrude. The tail consists of a few soft incurved feathers, which are ash coloured. These we used to call 'Walghvögel,' for the reason that the longer and oftener they were cooked, the less soft and more insipid eating they became. Nevertheless their belly and breast were of a pleasant flavour and easily masticated."

In a large number of works on travel and voyages published in the 17th and 18th Centuries we find all sorts of notices about the Dodo, and numerous pictures of which I have given outline drawings. From these sources it appears that the Dodo became extinct about the end of the 17th Century, i.e., 1680-1690. The causes of the extermination of this, perhaps the best known and most talked about of the recently extinct birds, are not far to seek. The total inability of flight, the heavy slow gait, and the utter fearlessness from long immunity from enemies, led to a continual slaughter for food by the sailors and others who came to and dwelt on Mauritius. But the final cause of the extermination of this and many other birds in the Mascarene Islands was probably the introduction of pigs, and also of the Ceylon Monkey. These animals increased enormously in numbers, ran wild in the woods, and soon destroyed all the eggs and young birds they could find.

It is strange that for many years after great attention had been paid to the Dodo, ornithologists differed conspicuously as to what family it and the other two Didine species belonged. Many asserted that it was a Struthious bird, in fact Linnaeus called it calmly Struthio cucullatus, while others just as forcibly declared it to be an abnormal Vulture. The truth is, that although the Didunculus strigirostis of Samoa, which was supposed to be its near representative, is not at all closely allied, yet the two species of Didus and Pezophaps solitarius form a group of very specialized pigeons.

THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF THE PAINTINGS REPRESENTING THE DODO.

01. Vienna, in the Library of the Emperor Francis. By Hufnagel, 1626, reproduced by von Frauenfeldt in his book, 1868.

02. Berlin. "Altes Museum," Cabinet 3, Division 2, No. 710. By Roelandt Savery, 1626.

03. Sion House. Duke of Northumberland. By John Goeimare, 1627.

04. Vienna. Kunsthistorisches Hofmuseum, formerly Belvedere. By Roelandt Savery, 1628

05. London. Zoological Society, formerly Broderip. By Roelandt Savery, undated.

06. Pommersfelden, Bavaria. Count Schönborn, "Orpheus charming the Beasts." By Roelandt Savery, undated.

07. Haag. Mauritshuis. "Orpheus charming the Beasts." By Roelandt Savery.

08. Stuttgart. Formerly Dr. Seyffer, but sold at his death and since disappeared. By Roelandt Savery.

09. London. British Museum, formerly belonging to G. Edwards. Probably by Roelandt Savery.

10. Emden. Galerie der Gesellschaft für Bildende Kunst. "Orpheus charming the Beasts." By Roelandt Savery.

11. Oxford. Ashmolean Museum. By John Savery, 1651.

12. Haarlem. Dr. A. van der Willigen, Pz. By Pieter Holsteyn (1580-1662), not dated.

13. Dresden. Kgl. Gemälde-Galerie. "Circe and Ulysses." By C. Ruthart, 1666.

14. Dresden. Kgl. Gemälde-Galerie. "The Creation of the Animals." Supposed to be by Franz Francken (1581-1642), no date, and said to be by a different artist.

At least 2 Mauritius Dodos have been exhibited alive in Europe, one brought back by Van Neck in 1599, and which most likely served as the model for nearly all Roelandt Savery's pictures, and one exhibited in London in the year 1638, mentioned by Sir Hamon Lestrange. This is almost certainly the bird afterwards preserved in Tradescant's Museum (1656), and finally in Oxford (Ashmolean Museum), and probably served for the model of the supposed Savery picture in the British Museum.

The Dodo inhabited Mauritius.

NOTE.—Didus nazarenus Gmelin, based on the "Oiseau de Nazareth" of Cauche (Descr. de l'ile de Madagascar, p. 130, ff, 1651) is evidently founded on a mistaken and partly fictitious description of a Dodo, or rather a mixture of that of the Dodo and a Cassowary. The name was, perhaps, also a mistake, derived from that of "Oiseau de nausée," which has a similar meaning as "Walghvogel."

Explanation of Plates of Dodo.

Plate 24.

This was taken from the picture by Roelandt Savery in Berlin, but the wings, tail and bill have been altered, partly from Pierre Witthoos' picture of the Bourbon Dodo, and partly from anatomical examination. The tail, however, appears to have been curled over the back in life, according to most authors.

Plate 24 (a).

Fig. 1. Reproduction in outline of the Dodo in Savery's Orpheus at Haag. Vide antea No. 7 in the List of Paintings.

Fig. 2. Outline of Dodo (and Pelican?) in Ruthart's "Circe and Ulysses" at Dresden. Vide antea No. 13 in the List of Paintings.

Fig. 3. Outline of Dodo (and Pelican?) in Frans Franckens (?) picture in Dresden. Vide antea No. 14 in the List of Paintings.

Plates 24 (b and c).

No. 1. Outline of Dodo in Roelandt Savery's picture at Berlin. Vide antea No. 2 in the List of Paintings.

No. 2. Outline of picture by Roelandt Savery in the British Museum. Vide antea No. 9 in the List of Paintings.

No. 3. Outline of Dodo in Jacob van Neck's Voyage, Plate 2 (1598).

No. 4. Outline of Roelandt Savery's Dodo, Vienna. Vide antea No. 4 in the List of Paintings.

No. 5. Outline of Dodo in Broeck's Voyage (Peter van Broeck's Voyage, 1617).

No. 6. Outline of Dodo in Piso's additions to Jacob Bontiu's Oriental Natural History, 1658.

No. 7. Outline of Dodo in Sir Thomas Herbert's Relation of some yeares Travels, 1626.

No. 8. Outline of Dodo in Clusius Exoticorum libri decem, 1605.

No. 9. Outline of Dodo in Joan Nievhof's Gedenkwaerdige Zee and Lantreize, 1682.

No. 10. Outline of Dodo in John Goeimare's picture at Sion House, 1627. Vide antea No. 3 in the List of Paintings.

No. 11. Outline of Dodo in Roelandt Savery's picture at Pommersfelden. Vide antea No. 6 in the List of Paintings.

No. 12. Outline of Dr. H. Schlegel's restoration of the Dodo in Transactions, &c., of the Amsterdam Academy, vol. 2, 1854.

No. 13. Outline of Dodo in Roelandt Savery's picture, Zoological Society, London. Vide antea No. 5 in the List of Paintings.

DIDUS SOLITARIUS (SELYS).

RÉUNION DODO.

(Plates 25, 25a, 25b.)

Great Fowl Tatton, Voy. Castleton, Purchas his Pilgrimes, ed. (1625) I p. 331 (Bourbon or Réunion).

Dod-eersen Bontekoe, Journ. ofte gedenck. beschr. van de Ost. Ind. Reyse Haarlem (1646) p. 6.

Oiseau Solitaire Carré, Voy. Ind. Or. I p. 12 (1699).

Solitaire Voy. fait par Le Sieur D.B. (1674) p. 170.

Apterornis solitarius de Selys, Rev. Zool (1848) p. 293.

Didus apterornis Schlegel, Ook een Wordje over den Dodo p. 15 f. 2 (1854).

Pezophaps borbonica Bp., Consp. Av. II p. 2 (1854).

Ornithaptera borbonica Bp., Consp. Av. II. p. 2 (1854).

Didine Bird of the Island of Bourbon (Réunion) A. Newt. Tr. Zool. Soc. VI pp. 373-376, pl. 62 (1867).

Apterornis solitaria Milne-Edw., Ibis (1869) p. 272.

? Didus borbonica Schleg., Mus. P.B. Struthiones p. 3 (1873).

Solitaire of Réunion A. Newton, Enc. Brit. II p. 732 (1875).

The Didine bird of Réunion was first mentioned by Mr. Tatton, the Chief Officer of Captain Castleton, in his account of their voyage given in Purchas his Pilgrimes. His account is as follows:—

"There is store of land fowle both small and great, plenty of Doves, great Parrats, and such like; and a great fowle of the bignesse of a Turkie, very fat, and so short winged, that they cannot fly, being white, and in a manner tame: and so be all other fowles, as having not been troubled nor feared with shot. Our men did beat them down with sticks and stones. Ten men may take fowle enough to serve fortie men a day."

We then find frequent mention of this bird by Bontekoe in 5 separate treatises or editions, from 1646 to 1650, and by Carré in 1699. But the first more detailed description is given by the Sieur D.B. (Dubois) in 1674, which is as follows:—

"Solitaires. These birds are thus named because they always go alone. They are as big as a big goose and have white plumage, black at the extremity of the wings and of the tail. At the tail there are some feathers resembling those of the Ostrich. They have the neck long and the beak formed like that of the Woodcocks (he refers to the woodrails, Erythromachus—W.R.), but larger, and the legs and feet like those of Turkey-chicks. This bird betakes itself to running, only flying but very little. It is the best game on the Island."

It will be seen that, while Dubois says the wings and tail are black, Pierre Witthoos's picture, from which the accompanying plate was partly drawn, shows the wings yellow. This may either be due to Dubois' faulty description, or, what is much more probable, the bird brought to Amsterdam, which Witthoos painted, was somewhat albinistic. The bill in the picture by Witthoos shows a distinctly mutilated bill, evidently done by the bird's keeper to prevent being injured by the formidable hook of the untrimmed bill. In addition to two pictures (the one formerly in the possession of Mr. C. Dare, of Clatterford, in the Isle of Wight, and a second in Holland, both by Pieter Witthoos, painted about the year 1670), we know of this bird only the drawing given in Zaagman's edition of Bontekoe, 1646. In all these drawings the first four primaries point down and forward, which is probably owing to the injured condition of the specimen figured, so in the accompanying plate I had the wing drawn like the true Dodo's and the bill reconstructed.

Habitat: Island of Bourbon or Réunion.

Only known from the above-mentioned descriptions and two drawings. No specimens existing.

This bird became extinct between the years 1735 and 1801, because in the latter year Monsieur Bory St. Vincent made his scientific survey of the Island, and no such bird existed then; while we know that Monsieur de la Bourdonnaye, who was governor of the Mascarene Islands from 1735 to 1746, sent one alive to one of the directors of the French East Indian Company. Of this, the second living specimen brought to Europe, we unfortunately have neither drawing nor history.

Explanation of Plates.

Plate 25.

Drawing of White Dodo from Pierre Witthoos' picture, the bill and tail being reconstructed from the model of the common Dodo.

Plate 25 (a).

Fig. 5. Outline of figure of White Dodo in the picture by Pieter Witthoos circa 1670 vide supra.

Fig. 8. Outline of Woodcut in Zaagman's edition of Bontekoe van Hoorn, 1646.

Fig. 7. Outline of figure of White Dodo in an edition of Plinius Secundus about 1643 but without date.

Fig. 4. Outline of Dr. H. Schlegel's reconstruction of the Réunion Dodo.

Plate 25 (b).

Drawing from description of the Sieur D.B. (Dubois), 1674.

PEZOPHAPS STRICKLAND & MELVILLE.

Skull with a moderate rostrum, slightly hooked, and the nasal and maxillary processes of the praemaxillae diverging anteriorly; the frontal region flat with but little cancellous tissue. Coracoid stout. Manus armed with an ossified tuberosity. Neck and feet long. Delto-pectoral crest of humerus aborted.

This genus connects Didus with the Columbidae. The male is much larger than the female.

PEZOPHAPS SOLITARIUS (GM.)

THE SOLITAIRE.

(Plate 23, 25a, Figs. 1, 2, 3.)

Solitaire Leguat, Voy. deux iles désertes Ind. Or. I pp. 98. 102 (1708).

Didus solitarius Gmelin, S. N. I p. 728, n. 2 (1788).

Pezophaps solitaria Strickland, the Dodo, &c., p. 46 (1848).

Didus nazarenus Bartl. (nec. Gmel.), P. Z. S. 1851, p. 284, pl. XLV.

Pezophaps minor Strickland, Contr. to Orn. 1852, p. 19 (?).

This bird was first made known by Leguat in 1708, but some confusion seems to have arisen, owing to his applying the same name to them as the Sieur D.B. (Dubois) gave to the Bourbon Dodo in 1674. This is the original description:—

"The feathers of the males are of a brown-grey colour, the feet and beak are like a turkey's, but a little more crooked. They have scarce any tail, but their hind part covered with feathers is roundish, like the crupper of a hare. They are taller than turkeys. Their neck is straight, and a little longer in proportion than a turkey's when it lifts up his head. Its eye is black and lively, and its head without comb on cop. They never fly, their wings are too little to support the weight of their bodies; they serve only to beat themselves and flutter when they call one another. They will whirl about for twenty or thirty times together on the same side during the space of 4 or 5 minutes. The motions of their wings make then a noise very like that of a rattle, and one may hear it two hundred paces off. The bone of their wings grows greater towards the extremity, and forms a little round mass under the feathers as big as a musket ball. That and its beak are the chief defences of this bird. 'Tis very hard to catch in the woods, but easy in open places, because we run faster than they, and sometimes we approach them without much trouble. From March to September they are very fat, and taste admirably well, especially while they are young, some of the males weigh 45 pounds. The females are wonderfully beautiful, some fair, some brown. I call them fair, because they are the colour of fair hair; they have a sort of peak like a widow's, upon their breasts, which is of a dun colour. No one feather is straggling from the other all over their bodies, they being very careful to adjust themselves, and make them all even with their beaks. The feathers on their thighs are round like shells at the end, and being there very thick, have an agreeable effect. They have two risings on their craws, and the feathers are whiter there than the rest, which livelily represents the fine neck of a beautiful woman. They walk with so much stateliness and good grace that one cannot help admiring them and loving them, by which means their fine mien often saves their lives."

The unfortunate Solitaires, owing to the depredations by the pigs and monkeys introduced by the settlers, and the unceasing slaughter by the latter, became extinct between the years 1760 and 1780.

Of their habits we only have the accounts of Leguat:—

"Though these birds will sometimes very familiarly come up near enough to one, when we do not run after them, yet they will never grow tame, as soon as they are caught they shed tears, without crying, and refuse all manner of sustenance till they die.

When these birds build their nests, they choose a clean place, gather together some palm leaves for that purpose, and heap them up a foot and a half high from the ground, on which they sit. They never lay but one egg, which is much bigger than that of a goose. The male and female both cover it in their turns, and the young is not hatched till at 7 weeks end. All the while they are sitting upon it, or are bringing up their young one, which is not able to provide for itself in several months, they will not suffer any other bird of their species to come within two hundred yards round of the place. But what is very singular is, the males will never drive away the females, only when they perceive one they make a noise with their wings to call their own female—she drives away the unwelcome stranger, not leaving it till it was without her bounds. The female does the same as to males, which she leaves to the male who drives them away. We have observed this several times, and I affirm it to be true. The combats between them on this occasion last sometimes pretty long, because the stranger only turns about, and does not fly directly from the nest. However, the others do not forsake it till they have quite driven it out of their limits. After these birds have raised their young one, and left it to itself, they are always together, which the other birds are not, and though they happen to mingle with other birds of the same species, these two companions never disunite.

We have often remarked, that some days after the young one leaves the nest, a company of 30 or 40 bring another young one to it, and the new fledged bird, joining the band with its father and mother, they march to some bye place. We frequently followed them, and found that afterwards the old ones went each their way alone, or in couples, and left the two young ones together, which we called a marriage."

Leguat's, d'Heguerty's, and the Abbé Pingré's descriptions were all we had of this great ground pigeon down to 1866, except a few bones. When Mr. Strickland proved its distinctness from the Dodo of Mauritius in 1844, and up to 1852, these bones numbered 18. In 1864 Mr. E. Newton and Captain Barclay got 3 more bones, in 1865 Mr. Jenner, the resident magistrate, collected 8 bones, and in 1866 nearly 2,000 bones were collected, but during the Transit of Venus expedition in 1874, a thorough search was made, and a number of complete skeletons was collected.

Habitat: Island of Rodriguez.

Represented in Museums by a number of complete skeletons and a large number of bones.

Explanation of Plates.

Plate 23.

Coloured drawing made from Leguat's description and figure.

Plate 25 (a).

Fig. 1. Outline of figure in Leguat's Voyage, 1708.

Fig. 2. Outline of Schlegel's reconstructed figure of the Solitaire, 1854.

Fig. 3. Outline of Solitaire in Frontispiece to Leguat's Voyage, 1708.

TYMPANUCHUS CUPIDO (L.)

HEATH HEN.

Tetrao cupido Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. Ed. X, p. 160 (1758—ex Catesby, Carolina II, App. p. 1, pl. 1, 1743. "Habitat in Virginia"); Vieillot, Gal. Ois. II, p. 55, p. 219 (1825).

Pinnated Grouse Latham, Gen. Syn. II, 2, p. 740 (1783).

Bonasa cupido Stephens, in Shaw's Gen. Zool. XI, p. 299 (1819—New Jersey and Long Island).

Cupidonia cupido Baird, B. N. Am. p. 628 (1860—partim); Maynard, B. E. Massach. p. 138 (1870—Martha's Vineyard and Naushon Island); Brewster, Auk 1885, p. 82 (Massachusetts).

Cupidonia cupido var. cupido Baird, Brewer & Ridgway, N. Amer. B. III, p. 440 (1874).

Cupidonia cupido brewsteri Coues, Key N.A.B., App. p. 884 (1887).

Tympanuchus cupido Ridgway, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. VIII, p. 355 (1885); Bendire, Life-Hist. N. Amer. B. I, p. 93 (1892); Grant, Cat. B. Brit. B. XXII, p. 77; Check-List N. Amer. B. Ed. II, p. 115, No. 306 (1895); Hartlaub, Abh. Naturw. Ver. Bremen XIV, 1 (second ed. of separate copy, p. 15) (1896).

Linnaeus' brief diagnosis is: "Tetrao pedibus hirsutis alis succenturiatis cervicalibus." After the habitat he adds: "Color Tetricis feminae; vertex subcristatus; a tergo colli duae parvae alae: singulae pennis quinque." This diagnosis is taken from Catesby, who gives a fairly good description and a recognizable coloured plate. He specially mentions that the neck-tufts are composed of five feathers, and in his figure they are shown to be much pointed. Catesby expressly states that he does not know exactly from which part of America his specimen came—yet Linnaeus says "Habitat in Virginia."

Formerly the Heath Hen inhabited New England and part of the Middle States (Southern Connecticut, Long Island, New Jersey, Nantucket, Eastern Pennsylvania), but in 1887 Ridgway stated already that it was then apparently extinct, except on Martha's Vineyard. About that time it was still common on that island, inhabiting the woods and chiefly haunting oak scrub and feeding on acorns. They were then "strictly protected by law," but this protection seems not to have been effectual, as from 1893 to 1897 a number were killed, skinned, and sold to various museums. This was, perhaps, fortunate rather than unfortunate, because Mr. Hoyle (the man who collected them) told us that in 1894 a fire destroyed many of them, and in the fall of 1897 they were practically gone. But almost worse than this, perhaps, two pairs of "Prairie Chicken" (Tympanuchus americanus) were liberated and broods of young (of the latter apparently) were seen, so that it is to be feared that birds shot now on Martha's Vineyards Island may have blood of T. americanus in them, the two forms being closely related, somewhat difficult to distinguish, and evidently sub-species of each other. Nevertheless, a bird taken in 1901 was pronounced to be typical cupido by Mr. Brewster.

From these facts it is pretty clear that the Heath Hen is among the birds the fate of which is sealed, and which, if not already exterminated or mixed with foreign blood, will soon have disappeared. The footnote in the Proceedings of the IV. International Ornithological Congress, p. 203, is herewith corrected.

COTURNIX NOVAEZELANDIAE QUOY & GAIM.

(Plate 28, Fig. 2.)

Coturnix Novae-Zelandiae Quoy and Gaimard, Voy. Astrolabe, Zool. I. p. 242, pl. 24, fig. 1 (1830—"Il habit la baie Chouraki (rivière Tamise de Cook), à la Nouvelle-Zélande"); Gould, Syn. B. Austr., text and pl. fig 2 (1837-38); Buller, B. New Zealand, p. 161, pl. (1873); Hist. B. New Zealand, 2nd ed. I, p. 225, pl. XXIII (1888); Grant, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. XXII p. 245 (1893).

This Quail, though a typical Coturnix, is easily distinguished from all other species. The male has the upper-side almost black, each feather bordered and indistinctly barred with rufous-brown, and with a wide, creamy white shaft-line. The throat and sides of the head are rufous-cinnamon, the feathers of the chest and breast at their basal half buff with a broken black cross-bar, the distal half black, with two pale buff spots near the tip, or with a continuous white border.

This sole representative of the "gamebirds" in New Zealand was in former days very numerous in both islands, but especially so in the South Island, wherever there was open grass-land, but is now evidently extinct. Its disappearance is apparently not due to excessive shooting, but rather to the introduction of rats, cats, and dogs, and last, but not least, to bush-fires and to the regular burning of the sheep-runs, according to Sir Walter Buller. No doubt the establishment itself of extensive sheep-farms in the once, more or less, uninhabited grass-land was ominous for the future of the Quail.

It is not quite clear when the Quail disappeared. The last on the North Island was shot by Captain Mair at Whangarei in 1860. Specimens were recorded in 1867 and 1869, but were apparently not procured. In Haast's "Journal of Exploration in the Nelson Province" it is said to be still very abundant in 1861 on the grassy plains of the interior.

Sir Walter Buller mentions two specimens said to be from an island in Blue Skin Bay, shot in "1867 or 1868." In his Second Edition of the Birds of New Zealand he informs us that it was found occasionally in the South Island down to 1875, but in the "Supplement" he speaks of a specimen said to have been shot in 1871, but adds, "There is no absolute evidence of it," and "if true, this individual bird must have been about the last of its race." Therefore, evidently the note about 1875 was erroneous.

The statement of Mr. Cheeseman, that he took eggs on Three Kings Islands is erroneous. The eggs belonged to a Synoecus, and the egg given to Sir Walter Buller is now in my collection.

I have, however, also two eggs of Coturnix novaezealandiae, brought home by Dr. H. O. Forbes. They have a brownish-white shell, covered and washed all over with deep brown patches and lighter brown underlying markings. They show distinctly the character of Quails' eggs, but, besides being much larger, are easily distinguished from eggs of Coturnix coturnix. They measure 34.3 by 25 and 34.5 by 21.3 mm.

Of birds I have in my collection: One ♂ ad. Shot at Whangarei, North Island, by Major Mair, in 1860. (This is the specimen figured in the Second Edition of the "Birds of New Zealand." I bought it with Sir Walter Buller's collection eighteen years ago. By a curious lapsus memoriae Sir Walter Buller, in the "Supplement," p. 35, in 1905, states that this bird was in his son's collection.) One ♀ ad. and one ♂ in the first year's plumage, shot by Messrs. Walter Buller and E. French near Kaiapoi, South Island, in the summer of 1859.

Seven specimens are in the British Museum, the types in Paris, three in Cambridge, a pair in Christchurch in New Zealand, some in the Canterbury Museum, and doubtless many others, most of which have never been recorded.

DINORNITHIDAE.

DINORNITHIDAE.

MOAS.

The first announcement of the former existence of large Struthious birds in New Zealand was made by Mr. J. S. Polack in 1838. In his book New Zealand, he states that he found large bird bones near East Cape in the North Island. The first specimen, however, that came into the hands of a scientific man was the bone sent to Professor Owen in 1839 by Mr. Rule, who reported that the natives had told him that it was the bone of a large Eagle which they called "Movie." Professor Owen, with his extraordinary knowledge, at once saw that far from any connection with the Raptores, Mr. Rule's bone was a portion of a femur of a gigantic Struthious bird. He described it on November 12th, 1839, at a meeting of the Zoological Society, and it was figured on Plate 3 of Volume III of the Transactions of the Zoological Society.

The next notice of the Moas takes the form of a letter, received by Professor Owen from the Rev. W. C. Cotton, dated Waimate, near the Bay of Islands, New Zealand, July 11th, 1842; and in it the writer gives an account of his meeting with the Rev. Mr. Wm. Williams, a fellow missionary at East Cape. The latter had collected a lot of "Moa" bones and sent them to a Dr. Buckland. Mr. Williams also reported a conversation with two Englishmen, who declared they had been taken out by a native at night and had seen a Moa alive, but had been too frightened to shoot it.

On January 24th, 1843, Professor Owen exhibited a number of bones from Mr. Williams' collection, and described them, giving the bird the name of "Megalornis novaezealandiae," afterwards changing the generic title into Dinornis, as Megalornis was preoccupied. Afterwards, when describing these bones and those contained in the second box of Mr. Williams' collection more fully, he somewhat inconsistently changed the specific name to struthioides, which Captain Hutton, in his later classification, retained. Following the laws of priority, however (novaezealandiae has 10 months' priority over struthioides), we must reinstate the name novaezealandiae.

A number of other finds occurred between 1842 and 1847, but by far the largest and most important collections were made and sent home between 1847 and 1852 by the Hon. W. Mantell, who sent to Professor Owen many hundreds of bones and eggshells, from which the Professor was enabled to determine and describe a large number of species, and even as early as this to separate some genera.

The bulk of later finds were made by Sir Julius von Haast, Captain Hutton, and Mr. Aug. Hamilton, and the two most famous deposits were Glenmark Swamp and Te Aute; but it would take too much space to give here an account of all the other extraordinary discoveries of Moa deposits made by such men as Dr. Thomson, Mr. Earl, Mr. Thorne, Dr. H. O. Forbes, and many others. Besides many fragments of eggshell, a number of eggs have been found, which will be enumerated elsewhere.

Feathers have been found at Clutha River, near Roxburgh, and also in caves near Queenstown. Those from Clutha are mostly dark, being black with white tips; while the Queenstown ones resemble feathers of Apteryx australis in colours. Professor Owen has shown that Megalapteryx huttoni was feathered down to the toes, and in the plate I have represented it clothed with feathers similar to the Clutha ones, which I believe belong to this species. The Moas at one time must have been extraordinarily numerous, both in numbers and species, and they varied in height from 2½ feet to 12 feet. Professor Parker has shown that some of the species had crests of long feathers on the head, and, as some adult skulls of the same forms show no signs of this, he infers that the males alone had this appendage. There has been much discussion as to the time when the Moas became extinct, and we know for certain that the two species, Dinornis maximus and Anomalopteryx antiquus, belong to a much earlier geological epoch than the bulk of the other species. It would be too lengthy for my purpose to go into the arguments, but we can, by the study of the "kitchen middens" of Maoris and their traditions, fairly adduce that the Maoris arrived in the North Island some 600 years ago, that they hunted Moas, and that they exterminated them about 100 to 150 years after their arrival. In the South, or rather Central, Island, the Maoris appear to have arrived about 100 years later, and to have exterminated the Moas about 350 years ago. It is only fair to say, however, that Monsieur de Quatrefages adduces evidence in his paper which goes far to prove that Moas existed down to the end of the 18th or even beginning of the 19th century in those parts of the Middle Island not, or scantily, inhabited by Maoris.

The Dinornithidae form a separate group of the order Ratitae, in no way closely related to the Australian Emu (Dromaius), as many ornithologists have asserted, but nearer to the South American Nandu (Rhea) than any other living Ratitae, though exhibiting many characters in common with the Apterygidae. There have been a number of classifications set up of this family. The first by Reichenbach, in 1850, with 7 species and 7 genera! The next was by Von Haast, in 1873, who enumerated 10 species, divided into 4 genera. The third was Lydekker's, in 1891, who acknowledged 23 species, divided into 5 genera. Then came Hutton's, in 1892, which left out Megalapteryx, with its then known 2 species, and acknowledged 26 species, divided into 7 genera. Lastly we have Professor Parker's, in 1895, in which again Megalapteryx is left out, and 21 species are acknowledged, divided into 5 genera. There has been a great amount of controversy as to the number of species of Moas which really ought to be distinguished, and of late years there has been a tendency to unite most of the species as synonyms, the authors declaring that bones vary to such a degree that all the characters relied on for the distinguishing of the various species were individual variations, and that, besides, it was impossible that so many distinct forms could have occurred in such a small area. The extreme of this lumping was reached when Professor Forbes, in the Bulletin of the Liverpool Museums, III, pp. 27 and 28 (1900), divided the Moas into six genera, each with a single species. He thus ignores the fact that by doing so he has united forms which were founded on FULLY ADULT bones, and yet some of them were only about half or two-thirds the size of the others. I personally think that too many species have been made, and at least 7 of Captain Hutton's forms must be sunk. On the other hand some have been described since 1895 and 1900, and I have been obliged to name others rather against my will, so that in spite of uniting so many species of others I find I am obliged to acknowledge more species than anyone else. I have divided these into genera according to Professor Parker's classification, only adding Palaeocasuarius of Forbes, with 3 species, and Megalapteryx, with 5, which brings my number up to 38 species, divided into 7 genera. My reasons for not uniting these into 7 species and 7 genera, as those of the "lumping school" do, are twofold,—first, the bones of the Ratitae are much more solid than those of other birds, and are not given to so much individual variation; and, secondly, in the face of the great number of species of Paradise Birds and Cassowaries found on New Guinea, the contention that there could not be so many species of Moa on so small an area is not easily maintained. Moreover, we have strong support in the present fauna and flora for the presumption that, when the Moas first came into existence and differentiated into species, New Zealand was a much larger area, stretching at least from the Macquarie Islands in the south to the Kermadecs in the north, and from Lord Howe's Island on the west to the Chatham Islands on the east. So that, like the giant tortoises on the Galápagos Islands, they only got driven so closely together after their specific differentiation, when the land gradually subsided, owing to volcanic action. The differentiation of the family is as follows:—