THE OSPREY. 



7.3 



while the t\Yo others, ^foIlo and Chcctoptila 

 belong- to the J/clip/tagidcr. 



In this connection it is interesting^ to note that 

 the only indig"enous mammal of the islands is a 

 member of an American genus, viz. Lasiurus 

 sonotits a bat which belong^s to the same cate- 

 g-ory as the coot and the g-alliniile rather tlian 

 to that of the Drepanidine birds. 



Mr. Scott Wilson hjis included in his book two 

 very important and interesting- papers by Dr. H. 

 Gadow bearing- on the sj'stematic position and 

 orig-in of tVie various Passeres peculiar to the 

 islands, and based upon alcoholic specimens col- 

 lected bj- Mr. "Wilson. The tirst one was pub- 

 lished' in part ii, September IS*^)!. In this paper 

 Dr. Gadow took the stand that the Drepanidine 

 g-enera belong-ed to two families, referring 

 as he did the thick-billed forms to the Friui^il- 

 lidcc proper. The present writer has always 

 held that no matter what the ultimate orig-in of 

 the grouj) may have been, the thin-billed and 

 thick-billed genera are intimately related form- 

 ing as they do an almost mibroken series from 

 the sickle-billed Drepanis to the hawfinch- 

 billed Rhodacautliis. Thi.s is probably the most 

 extreme variation in rostral structure in any 

 one famih', nevertheless the similarity of these 

 birds in all other respects is so close a.s to pre- 

 clude a dual origin. It is therefore hig-hly g-rat- 

 ifying to find that Dr. Gadow, in the second 

 paper, published June 1899, (part vii,) after an 

 examination of more materal, comes to the op- 

 posite conclusion of his first paper, and now 

 freely concedes the unity of the g-roup. Curi- 

 ously enoug-h he was led to the reopening- of the 

 case chiefly by Mr. Perkins' persistently^ ex- 

 pressed opinion that Dr. Gadow's former view 

 was wrong-, an opinion gained from his experi- 

 ence in the field with reference to the habits of 

 these birds and particularly their strong and dis- 

 agreeable scent. Dr. Gadow's further conclu- 

 sions that the Drepanidine birds form a spe- 

 cialized g-roup confined to the Hawaiian archi- 

 pelag-o belong-ing- to the Fringilliform ag-grega- 

 tion and most nearly related to the Ccrreludte 

 may be accepted as correct. 



Of the book before us it remains only to be 

 said that in general style and execution it con- 

 forms to that of the modern English quarto 

 monographs with colored plates. The latter are 



by Mr. Frohawk, and are certainly the best we 

 have seen from that gentleman's pencil. The 

 later plates are particular^' good and show a 

 marked improvement over his earlier work. 85 

 species are described as constituting the avifauna 

 of Hawaii proper, ft2 of which are figured. 

 Three plates are devoted to nests and eggs, three 

 to the anatomical structure of Hawaiian birds, 

 and one represents a map of the archipelago. 



It is a matter of congratulation that the ma- 

 jority of Hawaiian birds have been described in 

 recent years so that there is but little room for 

 quarrels over nomenclature. It is dubious, 

 however, whether under the Stricklandian code 

 it is imperativeU' demanded to set aside JMolio 

 for Acrulocercus simply because the former was 

 proposed as a subgeneric term. Under the 

 American O. U. Code Molw will certainly have 

 to be retained and Lo.vops ochracea must take 

 the precedence over Loxops aiirea since Dr. 

 Finsch in employing the latter specific name 

 expressly intended to u.se the term given by Mr. 

 Dole, which we now know belongs to another 

 bird. Under the same code Fringilla rii/a of 

 Bloxham (18261 must give way to Frin,s.illa rufa 

 of Wilson (1811) and must henceforth be known 

 as Loxops wolsten/iolmii Rothschild. These 

 points are merely questions of nomenclatorial 

 rules. Rut we must dissent from another of 

 Mr. Wilson's names on the ground of identifica- 

 tion. He calls the Hawaiian crow Cori'us 

 tropicus Latham and believes that this name 

 was based upon a part albino. But a glance at 

 Latham's description will show that this view 

 is quite untenable. Latham (Gen. Synops. I, i, 

 1781. p. 384) describes a bird twelve inches and 

 a half long, with a bill an inch and a quarter, the 

 tips of both mandibles notched; the plumage is 

 glossy- black above, and the wings and tail are 

 black with a gloss of green: the vent and side 

 feathers tipped with dusky white. Now. Mr. 

 Wilson himself describes the Hawaiian crow as 

 19 inches long with a bill 2'2 inches long: the 

 etitire plumege as dusky brown, and the quills 

 of the wings as rust3' brown. It will be seen 

 that he and Latham are describing two entirely 

 different birds, notwithstanding the fact that 

 Latham gives Hawaii as the habitat of his 

 Corvus tropicus. The Hawaiian crow must 

 stand as Corvus /lawaiiensis Peale. 



