( (53 ) 



of the collectors, differ by the colour of the eye from Europeau moorhens, nor is 

 their colour blacker. 1 have tried hard to find any distinguishing characters from 

 European GaUintda chloropus, but failed. Although the oldest males have very 

 fine large red frontal shields, they are matched by specimens from Africa, England, 

 and the Malay Archipelago, nor is there any other remarkable difference. 



Our collectors liave sent ns thirty-six well-prepared skins, all from Guam, shot 

 in January, February, April, July, August, and December. This proves that it 

 is a sedentary bird on Guam, where it also Iireeds. Local name : " Platarn." 

 Iris, Ridgw. VII. 15 (Chinese orange); bill and frontal shield VII. 3 (crimson); 

 tip of bill X. 20 (apple-green); feet X. 20 (apple-green); claws II. 5 (slate-grey). 

 The collectors also supplied the following information on one of the labels, which 

 I reproduce literally translated : " This bird was obtained in the neighbourhood 

 of swamps. It is more frequently found near water. We caught alive an immature 

 bird. We kept it in confinement and fed it with rice, but unfortunately, during our 

 absence, it fell victim to the dogs. We observed that it was very quiet in the day- 

 time, and used to move about only in the night-time." 



Nests were found iu December and March on Guam in the grass on swampy 

 ground. The eggs are like those of European moorhens, and vary just as much 

 in size, form, and markings. 



Mons. Marche also procured some specimens, but they are referred by Professor 

 Oustalet to what he terms " Gallinula galeata var. sandivichensis.'" 



Having before me a good series of the Gallinula from the Sandwich Islands, 

 collected by Mr. Palmer, I am able to state that the form from Guam does not 

 at all belong to it, nor to G. galeata, which is the American form. The latter 

 resembles very much our (i. chloropus, from which it differs almost only in the 

 form of the frontal shield, which is less rounded, but more truncated at the top. 



If any one wishes to separate it only subspecifically, he cannot be blamed; 

 but we may just as well follow the American ornithologists, Shar{)e, and others 

 in keeping it specifically distinct. On the other hand, G. sandivichensis Streets 

 cannot be put down as a subspecies of galeata, from which it differs considerably 

 by the extent of the frontal shield, which reaches beyond the eyes, is more rounded 

 on the hinder corners, and much more swollen. I consider this form more 

 distinct from G. galeata than G. galeata from G. chloropus. With regard 

 to the subspecies of G. chloropus, I may say that it seems to me possible to 

 separate the very small specimens from the Malayan Islands subspecifically, 

 although it is difficult to draw a line of limitation. I also find that all the 

 specimens I have seen from Madagascar and Reunion have the under tail- 

 coverts buff throughout. This character, in the rare cases when found in European 

 moorhens, is more or less confined to the outer under tail-coverts, and mostly due 

 to a dirty condition. I therefore do not think it unwise to recognise G. pyrrhorhoa 

 as a subspecies. G. garmani, which I have from the lake of Titicaca, is so large 

 that I must consider it worthy of subspecific rank. 



The status of this group of the genus Gallinula would thus be as follows : — 



G. chloropus chloropus (L.), Europe, Africa, Asia (Guam). 



G. chloropus (prientalis?"), S.E. of Asia and Malayan Islands. 



G. chloropus pyrrhorhoa Newt., Mauritius, Madagascar, Reunion. 



G. galeata Bp., America generally. 



G. galeata garmani Allen, Lake Titicaca and Chili. 



G. sandwichensis Streets, Sandwich Islands. 



