38 THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY 



Notes on " List of Australian Birds," 



By E. P. Kamsat, F.L.S., &c. 



Anas gibberifrons, Mull. 



Since offering some remarks on this species in my list of 

 Australian Birds, published in a former number of these 

 *' Proceedings " (see Vol. 11, pt. 2, p. 209), I have, through the 

 kindness of Captain Hutton, Curator of the Otago Museum, N.Z., 

 been enabled to examine a specimen of Aqius gibberifrons (Mull.), 

 shot in the WeUington district, in JSTew Zealand. 



At first sight there appears no appreciable difference between 

 the New Zealand Bird, and the female or young male of oar 

 N. S. W. Anas castanea (A. ^punctata, Gould. Bds. Aust., Vol. VII, 

 pi. 11) ; in fact the birds might readily pass for one and the 

 same species. On close examination, however, I find that the 

 feet are smaller, the length of the toes being less ; the shield or 

 flattened portion of the bill at the forehead is also smaller, 

 narrower, and its lateral margins meet the culmen sooner, or at 

 a greater angle, in the New Zealand Bird than in the Australian 

 A. castanea. The width of the shield in A. gibberifrons is 0*3, 

 width of culmen between nostrils 0'15 ; the shield in A. castanea 

 is 0"43 in width, and the culmen between the nostrils 0"22. 

 In A. castanea the tarsus is 1*65, and the middle toe 1*85 ; in 

 A. gibberifrons the tarsus is 1'25, and the middle toe 1*7. These 

 proportions will of course vary in different individuals and sexes, 

 and are therefore, on the whole, of little importance. 



The only other difference I notice is the width of the white or 

 buff margin of the secondaries, which is wider in the Australian 

 than in the New Zealand species. 



Perhaps when a large series of the New Zealand birds be 

 examined these differences may be found to be constant, if not, 

 then I am afraid the Anas gibberifrons of Muller and A. castanea, 

 Eyton, are one and the same species. It is stated that the adult 

 males of A. gibberifrons resemble the females in plumage, but so 

 few have fallen into the hands of naturalists that this point has 

 by no means, been satisfactorily determined. Although it is rare, 

 even in districts frequented by our Australian Teal, to obtain 



