1887. J PROCEEDINGS OF UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 79 



(2) It will be seen from the table of measurements given below that 

 there is no diifereuce whatsoever in regard to dimensions or proportions, 

 ;No. 84683, from Florida, being, in fact, nearly identical with the type of 

 G. sandvicensis in these respects. I should remark that the American 

 specimens were picked up at random for measuring, except the last one, 

 a youTig male, which was selected as being the largest of the whole 

 series before me, and the only one with the wing longer than the second 

 Hawaiian specimen. 



(3) The absence or presence of white on the abdomen is simply due 

 to season, the type of G.sandvicensisheingvi-ithont white markings, while 

 both the birds collected by Mr. Knudsep have them. Both styles are 

 well matched by American birds. 



(4) Also in regard to the scarcity of white on the lining of the wing 

 the Hawaiian specimens are completely matched. 



(5) The tarsus is of the same length in both forms, as shown by the 

 table beiow. As to robustness and different form, I can only state that 

 I am unable to discover any tangible difference. 



(6) There remains only the difference in the color of the tarsus, which 

 is said to be, in the Hawaiian bird, of " a decided crimson blush on the 

 front," while in the American form the tarsus is uniformly "yellowish 

 green.'' I am, however, somewhat doubtful as to the stability and value 

 of this character, for in No. 110026 there is every indication of the 

 tarsus having been green like the toes, and not red like the lower end 

 of the tibiji. 



A very careful comparison with numerous American specimens fail 

 to reveal any other differences, exceiJt, possibly, a somewhat deeper 

 shade of plumbeous on the lower parts. 



It seems, therefore, that there are no characters upon which to bfise a 

 specific separation, and were it not that the difference in regard to the 

 color of the tarsus may hold good in the majority of specimens. I should 

 be disinclined to regard the Hawaiian bird as even subspecifically dis- 

 tinct. 



The Gallinule is probably a comparatively recent immigrant to the 

 islands from the American continent, as shown by the very small 

 amount of differentiation, for the close resemblance to the original 

 stock can hardly be accounted for by any other supposition. 



Bloxham, in 1826, mentions '■'• Fulica chloropus^^ as a Hawaiian bird, 

 but he apparently obtained no specimen. Peale, during the CTnited 

 States Exploring Expedition, obtained a specimen from Oahu, but lost 

 it, and Street's specimen was from the same island. Dr. Finsch (/. c), 

 during the summer of 1879, observed the Gallinule in the lagoons near 

 Waike and Kahalui, Maui, and near Waimauaio (Oahu). Knudsen's 

 specimens show that it also occurs on Kauai. This completes, so far as I 

 know, the published record of this bird on the islands. 

 . Mr. Kuudsen writes that this species is called by the natives ^^ Alai 

 iila,'^ Red Alai, as distinguished from '^Alai Jieokeo,''^ the coot with the 



