NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. 205 



cristis lateralibus longissimis, procul ultra occiput porrectis, et plumi, 

 coronalibus omnibus elongatis. 



Habitat. Maribus australibus. Ins. Falklandicis. 



No. . . . Mus. Acad., Philada. No locality given. The upper 

 parts are rather lighter colored (bluer) than in chrysocome (much 

 as in catarrhactes), but the difference is not well marked ; the head, 

 however, has a decided bluish cast hardly visible in the opaque 

 black of chrysocome. All the coronal feathers are longer, more 

 slender, and stiffer than I have ever seen them in chrysocome, 

 extending nearly two inches beyond the occiput, and forming a 

 median vertical black crest connecting the yellow lateral plumes. 

 The longest yellow plumes are full 3 inches in length, and reach 

 over 4 inches behind the e} r e about 7 inches from the tip of the 

 bill : they are accompanied to their very ends by a few of the long- 

 est black plumes. This is a condition I have never seen equalled 

 in any specimen of chrysocome, though the difference after all is 

 not so decided. The bill is no shorter than in some specimens of 

 chrysocome (the chord of culmen measuring If inches long) ; but 

 it is weaker than I have ever seen it in that species, being hardly 

 | of an inch deep. The tail is about 4 inches long ; middle toe 

 and claw nearly 3.00. 



No. . . . Mus. Acad., Phila. No locality assigned. Exactly 

 like the last, but the crests not quite so highly developed, though 

 they are still noticeably longer than in chrysocome. The bluish 

 cast of the upper parts, and even of the head, is well marked. 



No. . . . Mus. Bost. Soc, Falkland Islands, Coll. La Fresnaye. 

 {Hyatt.) 



According to Dr. Schlegel, it is this species that is indicated 

 in Gould's Handbook, p. 517, under the name of Eudyptes "catar- 

 ractes;" and by Pelzeln, Novara Reise, p. 140, pi. 5, under the name 

 of Eudyptes " chrysocome." We do not, however, venture to so 

 assign these names in our synonymy, especially since P'\ Schlegel 

 is certainly wrong in his identification of Gould's "chrysocome.'''' 



Although I am able to distinguish the three currently accredited 

 species, in the few specimens examined, yet the distinctions are 

 not of a very satisfactory nature, and I strongly suspect that 

 when specimens enough shall have been compared, the supposed 

 specific characters will melt insensibly into each other, so that, 

 at most, only varietal distinction can be reasonably asserted. 



