82 Dirccto7-' s Anvval Report. • ■ 



portion, but not conspicuonsh- so. Lores blackish and gray, gray- 

 est on the breast and palest on the throat : sides of the body like 

 the breast. Flanks and thighs rusty olive. Centre of the abdomen 

 clear white ; under tail coverts ranging from pale buffy cream to 

 white; lull black, iris brown; feet and tarsus dark brown; soles pale 

 yellow in life. Length 8.25 (8.3i)-8.40, wing 3.67 (3.73)-3.8o, 

 tail 3.10 (3.i7)-3.25, tarsus 1.22, toe i.oo. culmen .72. 



Adult Female : Similar to the male in color. Length 8.40, 

 Aving 3.70 (3.72)-3.75, tail 3.05 {3.o9)-3.i2, culmen .70. 



Immature Male : Similar to young laiiainisis, but much darker 

 and less rust}' olive over the back ; under parts uniformly graj'er; 

 wings and tail longer. Length 8.00, wing 3.65 (3.69)-3.75, tail 

 3.05 (3.ii)-3.i5, culmen .71. 



When studying the material preparatory to writing my Key 

 to the Hawaiian Birds, in 1899, I was convinced that the Molokai 

 form would prove distinct from the Lanai form. Since then as the 

 Museum's series of specimens from the two islands has increased, 

 evidence has accumulated all tending to substantiate the premise 

 there expressed (Memoir B. P. Bishop Museum, vol. i, p. 311) until 

 now, with the additional series of twenty carefully sexed birds in 

 the colle(5lion just made, there is no reason for hesitating longer 

 in separating these two closely allied forms. This I have done, 

 naming the Molokai Olomao in memory of my wife. 



That the species from the two islands are very similar is not 

 surprising, since the islands are only a few miles apart. Yet the 

 conclusion which has been generally accepted, namely, that the 

 birds from both islands cross the channel with sufficient frequency 

 and regularity to keep the individuals of both habitats uniform, 

 receives a serious rebuttal when we consider that neither Lanai 

 nor Molokai has, to our knowledge, sent out settlers to the nearby 

 and larger i.slands of Maui and Oahu, in sufficient numbers, if at 

 all, to in the least way prevent the genus from disappearing en- 

 tirely from the last mentioned islands, while they have continued 

 to remain common on both Lanai and Molokai. A sufficient cause 

 for their not throwing out stragglers or regular settlers is perfe<?tly 

 apparent when a close stud}- of the genus is made in the field. 



As is well known, all the species of Phcrornis are highly vSylvan, 

 rarely leaving the deeper woods. Or, if occasionally inhabiting the 

 more open parts of the woods, they are always of settled habits, 



[172]' 



