Dr. O. Finsch on two New-Zealand Penguins. 113 



" Distinguished from E. pachyrhynchus by its compressed 

 bill and short wing and hind toe, as well as its general colours. 

 About the same size as E. pachyrhynchus." (Hutton.) 



Captain Hutton suggests that this may be Latham^s '' Red- 

 footed Penguin^' (Gen. Syn. iii. p. 572), but without reason, 

 as a careful examination of the synonymy shows that La- 

 tham's description is based on ^'the Penguin" of Edwards 

 (t. 49 et t. 94, head on right hand), as is also " Aptenodytes 

 catarractes" of Forster (Comm. Soc. Reg. Gotting. iii. 1781, 

 p. 145) and Gmelin (Linn. Syst. Nat. ii. p. 558), and^'PAae- 

 ton demersus " of Linne (S. N. p. 219), and Brisson's '' Catar- 

 ractes " (Ornith. iv. p. 102) . All these descriptions are simply 

 derived from Edwards's figure, which represents a bird the 

 existence of which, in my opinion, will ever remain doubtful, 

 being very likely based on a made-up bird. I do not under- 

 stand how G. R. Gray (Handl. of B. iii. p. 98) and Schlegel 

 (Mus. P.-B. Urinat. p. 8) could identify Edwards's inaccurate 

 figure with E. chrysocoma, Forst., and Gmelin {Pinguinaria 

 cristata, Shaw), even supposing it to be the young bird, with- 

 out tuft — as Edwards's figure, besides other inaccuracies, 

 shows a bird with Mergus-V^ke legs, the tarsus being longer 

 than the middle toe. 



E. vittatus, if indeed a true Eudyptes, is easily distinguished 

 from all other members of the Penguin group by its broad 

 white superciliary streak, which runs from the base of bill to 

 the back of head, but which does not consist of elongated 

 feathers. 



A close examination of all the existing representatives of 

 Penguins leads me to the belief that very probably to this 

 new species belongs the figure of a Penguin which Vieillot 

 erroneously published under the name of " Aptenodytes pa- 

 pua" (Gal. des Ois. ii. 1834, p. 246, pi. 299), but which is 

 not the well-known species of Sonnerat, Forster, and Graeliu, 

 which Mr. Sclater, from the unfitness of the name, proposed 

 to call Pygoscelis wagleri (P. Z. S. 1861, p. 47)^. To judge 

 from Vieillot's figure and the French description (not the Latin 

 diagnosis, which relates to the true papua), the bird very 

 * [Should not this be called P. t<pmata, Peale?— Ed.] 



SER. III. VOL. V. I 



