Wellington Philosophical Society. 517 



specimens in New Zealand, some forty in numbei-, of all ages, and 

 collected from all parts of the country, I have no hesitation in saying 

 that (excluding, of course, the well-known Apteryx owcnli) all of them 

 arc referable to one and the same species. Having also carefully in- 

 spected the drawings illustrative of the specific distinctions between 

 Ap. mistralis and Ap. mantclli (' Proc. Zool. Soc.'), and examined the 

 characters on which Mr. Bartlett grounded his new species, I am 

 strongly of opinion that it will be fomid necessary to drop Apteryx 

 inantclli as a species, and to refer all the examples thereof to the 

 true .4^. australis." 



1871, " Catalogue of the Birds of New Zealand," by Hutton, p. 23 : " 58. 

 Apteryx australis. . . . Greyish-brown streaked with black, feathers 



soft to the touch South Island and Chatham Islands ('?). 



59. Apteryx mantelli, Bart. Rufous-brown streaked with black, feathers 

 harsh to the touch. North Island, Little Barrier Island." 1872, 

 " Transactions," vol. v., p. 19i : INIr. Potts discusses Mr. Buller's 

 views given in vol. iii., and writes, " We have no hesitation in 

 maintaining that the plumage alone presents sufficiently marked 

 characteristics for the retention of the two species ;" and refers to 

 the distinction pointed out by Captain Hutton. Mr. Potts then 

 says, "The nut is cracked at a blow. The feathers which clothe the 

 southern bird are produced into soft hair-like points ; the hand passed 

 over the plumage against the lay of the feathers encounters an almost 

 downy softness ; when compared with a similar test applied to the cover- 

 ing of A. mantclli it might be fairly so termed. The reason is obvious — 

 the feathers of the latter species are produced into hair-like points of 

 almost bristly stubbornness. This contrast in the character of the plumage 

 is distinguishable in the young state." 1874, "Transactions," vol. vi., 

 p. 118 : Sir Walter Buller writes on Apteryx mantelli as follows: "Dr. 

 Fmsch states that ' after careful and repeated examination ' of several 

 specimens from both islands he is unable to admit ^4. mantclli (of the 

 North Island) to the rank of a distinct species ; but he proposes to dis- 

 tinguish it from the South Island form as ' ^4. australis, var. mantclli, Bartl.' 

 This opens up again the old ([iKvstio vexata, 'What is a species? ' The 

 amount of difference necessary to constitute a ' species ' in the generally- 

 accepted sense is not capable of definition, .... and it is sufficient 

 for my argument that Dr. Finsch recognizes constant characters in the 

 North Island bird of a kind to distinguish it as a permanent ' variety.' I 

 may add that I had the satisfaction of submitting good specimens of 

 Apteryx australis and Apteryx mantelli to Professor Newton, Dr. Sclater, 

 ]Mr. Salvin, and Mr. Sharpe, all of whom were decidedly of opinion that 

 the characters relied on were of sufficient importance to warrant the 

 separation of the species." These extracts show beyond doubt that the 

 brown kiwi of the North Island was known as .4. mantelli, and the only 

 question at issue was whether it was a species distinct from, or merely 

 a variety of, Apteryx australis. Further, the characters now relied on as 

 distinguishing A. mantelli as a species were known and recognized 

 eighteen years ago, and Mr. Sharpe himself some fifteen years ago pro- 

 nounced in favour of Apteryx mantclli, the brown kiwi of the North Island, 

 being a separate species. He now comes to the same conclusion, and 

 we can only hoi^e that the change in name is made merely in the interests 

 of science. To me it seems that the change in name is wholly unwar- 

 ranted, and that Mr. Sharpe's proper course was to have confirmed his 

 former opinion that .'I. mantelli was a distinct species. It may be sug- 

 gested that the type-bird from which Mr. Bartlett established and de- 

 scribed the species A. mantelli was in reality a variety of A. australis, 

 and not a North Island kiwi ; but in Sir Walter Buller's paper in 

 vol. iii. we are informed that Mr. Bartlett had before him a series of 

 specimens, and had also had an opportunity of examining the original type- 



