REPORT ON THE SPHENISCID^. 225 



d'Acunha, tlie small intestine varies in length from nine to ten times, in Eudyptes chryso- 

 come from the Falklands, from twelve to thirteen times, and in Eudyptes chrysoco7ne 

 from Kerguelen, from seventeen to eighteen times the length of the vertebral column. 

 Moreover, in Eudyptes chrysocome from Tristan, the tracheal septum is relatively 

 shorter than in Eudyptes chrysocome from the Falklands, while in Eudyptes chrysocome 

 from Kerguelen it is, relatively to the trachea, longer than in either of the other varieties. 

 Lastly, if we compare the skulls of these varieties, we find a difference in their size but 

 not in their form. Eudyptes chrysocome from Kerguelen has a smaller skull than 

 Eudyptes chrysocome from Tristan, and the skull of the latter is in turn exceeded in size 

 by that of Eudyptes chrysocome from the Falklands. 



Taking these facts into consideration, I am of opinion that while these birds must be 

 included as members of one and the same species, they form well-marked varieties of that 

 species. In this opinion, at least so far as Eudyptes chrysocome from Tristan is concerned, 

 I am supported by the authority of Mr. Murray,^ who observes that " all the birds on this 

 Tristan group had the yellow superciliary plumes considerably longer than that of those got 

 at Kerguelen and the Falklands. They also all seemed to me rather bigger birds. The 

 Tristan birds are, I think, a well-marked variety." 



The second so-called species of the genus Eudyptes which we have to consider is 

 Eudyptes chrysolophus. This bird was recognised for the first time as a distinct species 

 by Brandt,^ who named it Catarractes chrysolophus. Since his time the majority of 

 ornithologists, including H3'att,^ Coues,* and Sclater,*^ have accepted Brandt's conclusion 

 that it is really specifically distinct from Eudyptes chrysocome. Mr. Sclater, the most 

 recent writer on the subject, observes : " " Forster evidently had both the ' Rock-hopper ' 

 and ' Macaroni ' Penguins under his eyes when he described his Aptenodytes chrysocome. 

 Brandt first clearly separated the two species, which are quite distinct and easily recognised 

 by the characters which he has given." 



Such being the opinion of ornithologists, it may appear presumptuous on my part to 

 throw doubt on the correctness of the conclusions at which they have arrived. An 

 examination, however, of the anatomy of Eudyp>tes chrysolophus, and a comparison 

 of it with that of Eudyptes chrysocome, compels me to entertain doubts as to whether 

 these two ought to be regarded as perfectly distinct species. A consideration of the exterior 

 alone of Eudyptes chrysolophus undoubtedly leads at once to the conclusion that Brandt 

 was justified in regarding it as distinct from Eudyptes chrysocome. Not only does it 

 differ from Eudyptes chrysocome, as pointed out by Brandt and Sclater, in the colour and 



1 Cliallenger Reports, Zoology, part viii. p. 131. 



= Bull. Acad. St. Petersburg, ii. p. 315. 



3 Proc. Boston Sci. of Nat. Hist., 1871, p. 250. 



* Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad., 1872, p. 204. 



* Challenger Reports, Zoology, part viii. p. 127. 

 ^ Ibid, part viii. p. 127. 



(ZOOL. CHAL. EXP. — PART XVIII. — 1883.) S 29 



