MAR 24 1903 



Siipplcii/ni/iiry Nofrs to an I\ssay on Aucicnl Haivaiian Fcallicr U 'or/c. 

 Br Wirj.iAM T. Brigham, Diicflor of llu Bcninr Paiialii Bishop M/iscinii^ Honorary 

 FcIIoio of I he Anthropological /nstitnic o/ Great Biilain and Ireland. 



When I published the introduc^crv essaj- of this \(ihnne, on Hawaiian Feather 

 Work, I hoped that it vvonld interest some one to point out specimens of that work 

 that had not fallen under the author's notice. That hope has been filled to a certain 

 extent and herewith I offer the additions. 



There has been a change in several of the names of the birds which furnish the 

 feathers. The Oo, Aerulocerens nobilis^ has dropped its inappropriate generic name 

 and reverted to the older appellation Mohoa //ot'ilis. The researches of my friend 

 Mr. William A. Bryan, Curator of Ornithology in this ]\Iuseum, have shown that 

 what we who were not skilled in ornithologic distinctions had considered the common 

 species of Tropic bird, Phaethon ccthei-ens^ is reallv the IV/aethon liptnrns. The Alala 

 or Crow returns to its former species and becomes Corvus hazuaiiensis, and the false 

 Mina is properly Aeridotheres trisiis. If then the reader who cares for correct nomen- 

 clature will adopt these changes he will liaAC (for a time) the authorized names 

 for the birds that furnish the feathers, the principal material with which we have to 

 deal in treating of the beautiful work of the old Hawaiians. Having corrected these 

 matters, which, I am happy to sav, were not so much due to the carelessness or ignor- 

 ance of the autlior as to the advance in Ornithology, we ma^- turn at once to the 

 additions that are to be made to the lists given in the original essa}'. 



The feather mats shown in Plate YI. of this volume have been still farther 

 examined by my friend Mr. Edge-Partington, and I may cpiote his note in Anthro- 

 pological Reviews and Miscellanea, London, 1900: 



" Professor Brigham, iu his Hawaiian Feather Work, refers to and figures two feather mats in 

 the British Museum, which together with a coronet of similar mauufaclure form the subject of tliis 

 note. Professor Brigham first saw these when on a visit to this country. He then considered that 

 they were not Hawaiian ; bvit since, failing to find any more likely locality, he places them "as mats 

 on which offerings were made to the god Kukailimoku, " until a better use can be found for them. 

 If these were merely mats I fail to see the use of the tying cords fastened to each end. Why, too, 

 should the makers have departed from their usual custom of mounting feathers on a network of olona 

 fibre, a much more suitable foundation than the thick rows of fibre of which these mats are made, 

 wrapt and sewn together, a form of manufacture, moreover, which is not in vogue iu Hawaii? Pro- 

 fessor Brigham says that the patterns are quite unlike those used in the feather cloaks; but I think 

 one can go furtlier than that, and sa\- that the\- are unlike any known pattern froiu Hawaii. We 

 must therefore tr\- and find another home for them, and I would suggest Tahiti, and that their use 



[437] '"' '-" 



