220 ]\Iathews, Nature of New Zealand Avifauna. \^^T^t\\ 



either of these, is related to the Creeper {Finschia novcs-seelandice) 

 is a very doubtful point. We hope to adjust these items at a 

 later period, but lack of material is the difficult item to overcome. 



Again-, the family Meliphagidce, the keynote to the Australian 

 Ornis, is credited with three species — the Bell-Bird {Anthornis 

 melanura), the Stitch-Bird {Notiomystis cincta), and the Tui 

 {Prosthemadera novce-seelandice) — but none of these can be directly 

 ascribed to an AustraUan ancestry, the Bell-Bird having the 

 most superficial hkeness. The Stitch-Bird is very probably not 

 a member of this family at all, while the Tui is a remarkable 

 evolution, with no very marked affinity to any existing Aus- 

 trahan species. The Ground-Lark is a Pipit [Aiistranthns nova- 

 seelandice), very closely allied to the Australian one, and certainly 

 quite a recent immigrant to New Zealand, and here again it 

 shows how quickly evolution works in that country. Thus, a 

 Pipit from one of the Subantarctic islands shows degeneration 

 towards fiightlessness in the reduction of the sternum. 



The Huia {Heteralocha acutirostris) was referred to the family 

 StiirnidcB along with the Saddle-back {Creadion carunculatus), 

 because the. investigators were unable to interpret the features 

 they observed. They have little to do with each other, and still 

 less with the Stiirnidcp-, and we allow each as an endemic family 

 until we know more about the anatomy of birds and are better 

 able to determine exact relationships. Similarly, the so-called 

 Crows were placed with the true Crows, but they are not related 

 in any sense, but contribute a distinct family, whose affinities 

 we hope later to trace. 



This short essay has been prepared simply with the idea of 

 placing on record facts,' and we have not loaded the paper with 

 a lot of detail, but we can produce full confirmation of all the 

 statements here made. It is unfortunate that the New Zealand 

 avifauna should have been so ill-treated in the past that a mass 

 of misstatements surrounds almost every bird. The superficial 

 critic then grasps these misstatements, ignorant of the truth, and 

 makes more confusion, and then the confusion is transferred into 

 other books by writers attempting to cover wide fields, and they 

 become historic. No word in this essay has been written second- 

 hand, and we have not controverted the statements on record, as 

 that would have more than doubled this space ; but we ask 

 anyone interested to contrast this article with any others they 

 may have read. 



We may conclude with a general survey in a few words. The 

 New Zealand avifauna is very peculiar, and this is due to long 

 isolation. This isolation has been once or twice interrupted, and 

 later invasions have taken place. Even since the apparent latest, 

 time has elapsed sufficient to allow (with the rapidity with which 

 evolution has worked in this country) variation in many marked 

 directions. 



While the invasions may have been mainly from the north, 

 there appear to be good reasons for allowing an Antarctic element 



