Ibelievethat the genusPennulashould be placed nearPorzanula, 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 inPoliolimnasandPorzanula.
Two species can be recognized:Pennula millsi, with a uniform upper surface, andPennula sandwichensis, with a distinctly spotted upper side. Both forms are now extinct.
Pennula millei(misprint formillsi) 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 ecaudataapud Wilson & Evans, Aves. Hawaii., part V, text and plate.
Pennula millei(misprint formillsi) 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 ecaudataapud Wilson & Evans, Aves. Hawaii., part V, text and plate.
Allwe 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,VacciniumandDianella, 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.
Rallus SandwichensisGmelin, Syst. Nat I p. 717 (1788—ex Latham! "Habitat exilis in insulis Sandwich").Pennula WilsoniFinsch, 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.
Rallus SandwichensisGmelin, Syst. Nat I p. 717 (1788—ex Latham! "Habitat exilis in insulis Sandwich").
Pennula WilsoniFinsch, 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'sdescription—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, Ibis 1897, p. 356, pl. IX, figs 4-7.
Tribonyx roberti Andrews, Ibis 1897, p. 356, pl. IX, figs 4-7.
Thisbird is described from an imperfect pelvis, a perfect left tibio-tarsus and a femur. The pelvis differs from that ofT. mortieriin 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 ofT. mortieriin 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. robertialso has the shaft immediately above the extensor bridge wider, the bridge itself less oblique, and the fibular crest is longer.
The measurementsare:—
Habitat: Sirabé in C. Madagascar.
DiffersfromPorphyrioby 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 mantelliOwen, Trans. Zool. Soc. III, p. 377, pl. LVI, figs. 7-11 (1848).
Notornis mantelliOwen, Trans. Zool. Soc. III, p. 377, pl. LVI, figs. 7-11 (1848).
Thisspecies 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 ofPorphyrio 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 inPalapteryx.
The occipital region inclines forwards as it rises, while the same is more vertical inPorphyrio. The post-frontal is broader than inPorphyrio. The chief distinction from that ofPorphyriois, 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 ofPorphyrio, being convex and oblong, andNotornisalso 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 theDinornisskull, with which Professor Owen comparedNotornis, referred by him toD. casuarinusis really that ofAptornis defossor(videTrans. Zool. Soc. III, pl. 52, figs. 1-7), and, therefore, it is quite natural that Professor Owen found a great likeness toDinornisinNotornis, as the skull he compared it with was really that of the RallineAptornis, and not the StruthiousDinornisat all.
Habitat: North Island, New Zealand.
Dr. H. O. Forbes, Trans. N.Z. Inst., discusses at length measurements of tibiae and femora ofNotornis, provisionally naming the skeleton in the Otago MuseumNotornis parkeri, as a new species, but I consider we must wait for confirmation till we get an associated skeleton ofN. mantelli.
Notornis HochstetteriA. 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).
Notornis HochstetteriA. 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).
ThenameNotornis mantellihaving 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 ofN. 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 ofN. hochstetterimeasures 109, that ofN. mantelli122, 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.
White gallinule, Voy. of Gov. Phillip to N.S.W., p. 273, cum tab. (1789).Porphyrio stanleyiRowley, Orn. Misc. I, p. 36, pl. IX (1875).Porphyrio melanotus(part.) Sharpe, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. XXIII, p. 205 (1894).Porphyrio albaG. R. Gray, List Birds N.Z., &c., Ibis 1862, p. 214.
White gallinule, Voy. of Gov. Phillip to N.S.W., p. 273, cum tab. (1789).
Porphyrio stanleyiRowley, Orn. Misc. I, p. 36, pl. IX (1875).
Porphyrio melanotus(part.) Sharpe, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. XXIII, p. 205 (1894).
Porphyrio albaG. R. Gray, List Birds N.Z., &c., Ibis 1862, p. 214.
Thefirst 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 asfollows:—
"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 underPorphyrio 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 aPorphyriobut aNotornis, and that it is also probably a specimen ofNotornis alba. That it is aNotornisI equally believe; but I think the length of the wing-coverts in the type ofN. 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 ofNesonetta aucklandicaof the Auckland Islands andAnas chlorotisof New Zealand, and thatNotornis albaof Norfolk Island was a still further degenerate form to the already flightlessN. stanleyiof Lord Howe Island. Wing nine inches.
Habitat: Lord Howe Island.
?White gallinuleCallam, Voy. Botany Bay (1783?) (teste Gray).Fulica albaWhite, Journ. Voy. N.S.W., p. 238 and plate (1790).Gallinula albaLatham, Ind. Orn. I, p. 768 (1790).Porphyrio albusTemminck, Man. d'Orn. II, p. 701 (1820).Porphyrio melanotus var. albaGray, Voy. Ereb. and Terror, Birds, p. 19 (1844).Porphyrio melanotusGray, Voy. Ereb. and Terror, Ed. II (1846), p. 14.Notornis ? albaPelzeln, Sitz. k. Akad. Wiss. Wien. XLI, p. 328 (1860).Notornis albaSalvin, Ibis 1873, p. 295, pl. X.
?White gallinuleCallam, Voy. Botany Bay (1783?) (teste Gray).
Fulica albaWhite, Journ. Voy. N.S.W., p. 238 and plate (1790).
Gallinula albaLatham, Ind. Orn. I, p. 768 (1790).
Porphyrio albusTemminck, Man. d'Orn. II, p. 701 (1820).
Porphyrio melanotus var. albaGray, Voy. Ereb. and Terror, Birds, p. 19 (1844).
Porphyrio melanotusGray, Voy. Ereb. and Terror, Ed. II (1846), p. 14.
Notornis ? albaPelzeln, Sitz. k. Akad. Wiss. Wien. XLI, p. 328 (1860).
Notornis albaSalvin, Ibis 1873, p. 295, pl. X.
Therehas 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 hisGallinula 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 withcertaintywhich of the two forms,Notornis albaorN. 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 ofN. 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 asfollows:—"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 genusNotornis. 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 considerN. albaan 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.
"Differedwidely fromDidusandPezophapsin 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 ofDidus solitariusandAphanapteryx bonasia, it does not fit when restricted to the "Oyseau bleu" of Le Sieur D.B. It might be described as: ResemblingAptornis, but with shorter bill and feet, thus more approachingNotornis.
One species.
Oyseaux bleusLe Sieur D.B., Les Voyages aux Isles Dauphine and Bourbon, pp. 170, 171 (1674).Apterornis coerulescensSelys-Longchamps, Rev. Zool. 1848, p. 294.
Oyseaux bleusLe Sieur D.B., Les Voyages aux Isles Dauphine and Bourbon, pp. 170, 171 (1674).
Apterornis coerulescensSelys-Longchamps, Rev. Zool. 1848, p. 294.
Theoriginal 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 ZealandNotornisandAptornis, which were evidently its nearest allies.
DiffersfromDinornis,PalapteryxandNotornisin having an articular surface for a very strong hind toe, and the tarso-metatarsus of a conformation more nearly resembling that found in theDodo, 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.
Dinornis otidiformisOwen, Trans. Zool. Soc. III, p. 247, pls. XXV and XXVI, fig. 5 (1844).Aptornis otidiformisOwen, ibidem p. 347 (1848).
Dinornis otidiformisOwen, Trans. Zool. Soc. III, p. 247, pls. XXV and XXVI, fig. 5 (1844).
Aptornis otidiformisOwen, ibidem p. 347 (1848).
Thisis 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 toCnemiornisall belong toAptornis.
Locality of type tibia: Poverty Bay, North Island, New Zealand; collected by Rev. Wm. Williams in 1842.
Aptornis defossorOwen, Trans. Zool. Soc. VII, pp. 353 to 366, pls. 40-44 (1871).
Aptornis defossorOwen, Trans. Zool. Soc. VII, pp. 353 to 366, pls. 40-44 (1871).
Theskull differs from that ofA. otidiformisby 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 inA. defossor.
The chief other differences in size, according to Owen, are asfollows:—
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.
DiffersfromFulicaby the much more curved shape of the skull, the deeply marked glandular impressions over the eyes, and the great pneumaticity of the frontal bones.
Fulica chathamensisH. O. Forbes, Nature, vol. XLVI p. 252 (1892).Fulica newtoniH. O. Forbes, l.c. (non Milne-Edwards).Palaeolimnas newtoniH. O. Forbes, Ibis 1893, p. 544.Palaeolimnas chathamensisMilne Edwards, Ann. Sci. Nat. (VIII) 2, 1896 p. 130.
Fulica chathamensisH. O. Forbes, Nature, vol. XLVI p. 252 (1892).
Fulica newtoniH. O. Forbes, l.c. (non Milne-Edwards).
Palaeolimnas newtoniH. O. Forbes, Ibis 1893, p. 544.
Palaeolimnas chathamensisMilne Edwards, Ann. Sci. Nat. (VIII) 2, 1896 p. 130.
Dr. Forbessays in Nature "I procured from the same beds which containedAphanapteryxa certain number of bones of aFulicawhich much resemble those ofFulica newtoni; like the bones ofAphanapteryx(should beDiaphorapteryx,W.R.) they vary much in size, some being equal to, while others were considerably larger than similar bones ofFulica 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 nameFulica chathamensis" to the larger species.
Later, in the Ibis, Dr. Forbes says, "The limb-bones and pelvis correspond so closely to those ofF. newtonithat 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 typicalFulica. The iliac grooves are larger than inFulica 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.
Poules d'eauSieur D.B., Voyages 1674.Fulica newtoniMilne-Edwards, Ann. Sci. Nat. (5) VIII pp. 194-220, pls. 10-13 (1867).
Poules d'eauSieur D.B., Voyages 1674.
Fulica newtoniMilne-Edwards, Ann. Sci. Nat. (5) VIII pp. 194-220, pls. 10-13 (1867).
Thetranslation of the Sieur D.B.'s (Abbé Dubois) description is asfollows:—"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 whichFulica newtoniagrees withPalaeolimnas chathamensisthat I feel convinced that the former is not a trueFulica, and, until we know its skull and can decide for certain, I think it is best to include it in the genusPalaeolimnas. 16 tibiae, 30 metatarsi, 8 humeri, 2 sternums, 4 fragments and an entire pelvis and sacrum, and 3 cervical vertebrae in the Tring Museum.
Fulica priscaHamilton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. XXV, p. 98 (1893).
Fulica priscaHamilton, Trans. N.Z. Inst. XXV, p. 98 (1893).
Thisbird was nearly as large asNotornis, but with a very small head and with a frontal shield. It was probably a poor flier, though not flightless, asFulica chathamensiswas. It was smaller than the latter. Measurements, according toHamilton:—
Habitat: Middle Island, New Zealand.
Bodynot 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.
Le GéantLeguat, Voyages (1708), p. 171, English edition.Leguatia giganteaSchlegel, Versl. Med. Akad. Wetensch. Amst. VII, p. 142 (1858).
Le GéantLeguat, Voyages (1708), p. 171, English edition.
Leguatia giganteaSchlegel, Versl. Med. Akad. Wetensch. Amst. VII, p. 142 (1858).
Leguat'sdescription 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.
PenguinHore, in Hakluyt's Coll. Voyages III p. 129 (Ed. 1600—ex Hore).Anser Magelanicus s. PinguinusWorm, Museum Wormianum, Lib. III, Cap. 19, p. 300, 301 (1655—Figured from a specimen from the Faröe Islands).PenguinWilloughby, Orn. Lib. III p. 242 pl. 65 (1676).Northern PenguinEdwards, Nat. Hist. Uncommon B. etc., III p. 147 pl. 147 (1750—First good coloured plate, from a specimen from Newfoundland).GeyervogelLinnaeus, Fauna Suecica p. 43 no. 119 (1746).Alca impennisLinnaeus, 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 borealisForster, Syn. Cat. Brit. B. p. 29 (1817—nomen nudum).Plautus impennisBrünnich, 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).
PenguinHore, in Hakluyt's Coll. Voyages III p. 129 (Ed. 1600—ex Hore).
Anser Magelanicus s. PinguinusWorm, Museum Wormianum, Lib. III, Cap. 19, p. 300, 301 (1655—Figured from a specimen from the Faröe Islands).
PenguinWilloughby, Orn. Lib. III p. 242 pl. 65 (1676).
Northern PenguinEdwards, Nat. Hist. Uncommon B. etc., III p. 147 pl. 147 (1750—First good coloured plate, from a specimen from Newfoundland).
GeyervogelLinnaeus, Fauna Suecica p. 43 no. 119 (1746).
Alca impennisLinnaeus, 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 borealisForster, Syn. Cat. Brit. B. p. 29 (1817—nomen nudum).
Plautus impennisBrünnich, 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:—
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 vonAlca 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).
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 vonAlca 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).
Probablythe 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 Aukand 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, theSpheniscidae.
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 andreferences:—
"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 inEuropaarctica."
"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 inEuropaarctica."
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 inAlca 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 islandswhere 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 absolutelycertain:—
1. Funk Islands near Newfoundland.2. Iceland (Geirfuglasker, Grimsey, Eldey).3. Faröe Islands.4. St. Kilda.5. Orkney Islands.
1. Funk Islands near Newfoundland.2. Iceland (Geirfuglasker, Grimsey, Eldey).3. Faröe Islands.4. St. Kilda.5. Orkney Islands.
1. Funk Islands near Newfoundland.
2. Iceland (Geirfuglasker, Grimsey, Eldey).
3. Faröe Islands.
4. St. Kilda.
5. Orkney Islands.
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 neckin 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.
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 neckin 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.
Procellaria jamaicensisBancroft, Zoological Journal V, p. 81 (1835—Nomen nudum!).Pterodroma caribbaeaCarte, P.Z.S. 1866, p. 93, pl. 10 ("Blue Mountains in insula Jamaica").Aestrelata caribbaeaGiglioli & Salvadori, Ibis 1869, p. 66.Fulmarus caribbaeusGray, Handlist B. III, p. 107 (1871).Aestrelata jamaicensisRidgway, Man. N. Am. B., p. 67; Cory, Cat. West-Indian B., p. 84 (1892).Oestrelata jamaicensisSalvin, Cat. B. Brit. Mus, p. 403 (1896).
Procellaria jamaicensisBancroft, Zoological Journal V, p. 81 (1835—Nomen nudum!).
Pterodroma caribbaeaCarte, P.Z.S. 1866, p. 93, pl. 10 ("Blue Mountains in insula Jamaica").
Aestrelata caribbaeaGiglioli & Salvadori, Ibis 1869, p. 66.
Fulmarus caribbaeusGray, Handlist B. III, p. 107 (1871).
Aestrelata jamaicensisRidgway, Man. N. Am. B., p. 67; Cory, Cat. West-Indian B., p. 84 (1892).
Oestrelata jamaicensisSalvin, Cat. B. Brit. Mus, p. 403 (1896).
Itis surprising that the namejamaicensishas generally been adopted for this species, as Bancroft gave no description whatever. The first description is that of Carte, in 1866, which is asfollows:—"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 tubes5⁄16inch; length of interval between nostrils and commencement of apical curve of upper mandible ¼ inch; length of tarsi 15⁄10inches; 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 interestingdetails:—
"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.
Procellaria hasitata(sic) Kuhl, Beitr. z. Zool. Temminck, Pl. Col. 416 (1826); Gould, B Australia VII, pl. 47 (1845).Procellaria diabolicaLafresnaye, Rev. Zool. 1844, p. 168.Procellaria meridionalisLawrence, Ann. Lyceum N.Y. IV, p. 475 (1848— ), V, pl. 15, p. 220 (1852).Procellaria rubritarsiNewton, Zoologist 1852, p. 3692 (ex Gould's MS., descr. nulla).Aestrelata haesitataBonaparte, 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 diabolicaBonap., Consp. Av. II, p. 189 (1855).Oestrelata haesitataNewton, 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).
Procellaria hasitata(sic) Kuhl, Beitr. z. Zool. Temminck, Pl. Col. 416 (1826); Gould, B Australia VII, pl. 47 (1845).
Procellaria diabolicaLafresnaye, Rev. Zool. 1844, p. 168.
Procellaria meridionalisLawrence, Ann. Lyceum N.Y. IV, p. 475 (1848— ), V, pl. 15, p. 220 (1852).
Procellaria rubritarsiNewton, Zoologist 1852, p. 3692 (ex Gould's MS., descr. nulla).
Aestrelata haesitataBonaparte, 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 diabolicaBonap., Consp. Av. II, p. 189 (1855).
Oestrelata haesitataNewton, 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. Saundersdescribes 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.
Chestnut-shouldered PigeonLatham, Gen. Syn. Suppl. II, add. p. 375 (1802—Norfolk Island).Columba spadiceaLatham, Ind. Orn., Suppl. p. LX, No. 7 (1802—Norfolk Island); Temminck and Knip, Pigeons, II, p. 1, pl. 1 (1808—"Friendly Islands."—Errore).Columba gigasRanzani, Elementi di Zool. III, 1, p. 223 (1821—"Friendly Islands."—Errore).Columba princepsVigors, P.Z.S. 1833, p. 78 (Australia—errore).Columba leucogasterWagler, Syst. Av., Columba spec. 12 (1827—Norfolk Island).Hemiphaga spadiceaSalvadori, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. XXI, p. 238 (1893).
Chestnut-shouldered PigeonLatham, Gen. Syn. Suppl. II, add. p. 375 (1802—Norfolk Island).
Columba spadiceaLatham, Ind. Orn., Suppl. p. LX, No. 7 (1802—Norfolk Island); Temminck and Knip, Pigeons, II, p. 1, pl. 1 (1808—"Friendly Islands."—Errore).
Columba gigasRanzani, Elementi di Zool. III, 1, p. 223 (1821—"Friendly Islands."—Errore).
Columba princepsVigors, P.Z.S. 1833, p. 78 (Australia—errore).
Columba leucogasterWagler, Syst. Av., Columba spec. 12 (1827—Norfolk Island).
Hemiphaga spadiceaSalvadori, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. XXI, p. 238 (1893).
TheNorfolk 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: