Part 10

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_. {142}

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. {143}

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. {144}

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.

{145}

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.

{147}

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. {148}

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.

{149}

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. {150}

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.

{151}

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.

{153}

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 {154} 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:--