78 



THE OSPREY. 



THH ORIGIN OF THK HAWAIIAN KAUNA. 



The important review of the Birds of the 

 Hawaiian Islands in the present number of the 

 OSPKKV re-opens the question of the Orig-in of 

 the Hawaiian Fauna. This is by no means the 

 simple question it mig-ht appear to be at first; 

 it is indeed a complicated one and consideration 

 of different classes g-ives diverse results. Even 

 the evidence from the several classes of verte- 

 brates is conflicting-. But when we proceed to 

 a review of the invertebrate and especially' the 

 terrestrial g-astropodotis fauna we are con- 

 fronted by some remarkable facts. 



The birds, as Dr. Stejneger, and before him 

 Professor Newton, has shown, do not belong- to 

 the 'Australian reg-ion' of faunists. "The re- 

 lationship of the birds to those of Polynesia is 

 verv slim. Apart from the mig-ratory birds 

 visiting the archipelago in winter, mostly from 

 Alaska, the remainder of the Avifauna is over- 

 whelming-lj' American." 



The mammals are only represented bj' a single 

 volant species, a bat of the genus Lasiurus and 

 nearly related to the common Red and Hoary 

 Bats {Lasiurus borealis and (■///frt'us) of the 

 United States. It is, however a distinct species, 

 Lasiurus stnnofus — Atalapha sonata of True and 

 Harrison Allen. As the genus is otherwise re- 

 stricted to America the Hawaiian species must 

 be a derivative from American outcasts or wan- 

 derers. 



The reptiles are of moment only in 

 showing how such animals may have their 

 range extended and that the fauna, so far 

 as the3' are concerned, is of recent origin 

 or rather introduction. Lizards are the only 

 representatives of the class existent there. Dr. 

 Stejneger has worked these up quite recently 

 and published his results in the Proceedings of 

 the United States National Museum (1898, 783- 

 813). There are seven species, four of the 

 Gecko family, and three of the Skink family. 

 One of these — the Hawaiian Gecko, Herniphyl- 

 lodactylus Icucostictus — is regarded by Dr. 

 Stejneger as a strictly Hawaiian species, and at 

 least it has not been found elsewhere. All the 

 others, however, as Dr. Stejneger has recog- 

 nized, "belong to species widely distributed over 

 the Indo-Polynesian Island world". The sup- 

 posed peculiar species, he adds, "has close I'ela- 

 tives in New Caledonia, Java, Sumatra, and 

 Ceylon"; in other terms, its slight differentia- 

 tion indicates recent divergence from its rela- 

 tives. 



No amphibians have obtained a foothold in 

 the islands. 



The fishes of the sea are mostly shared irt 

 common with the numerous islands of the 

 Pacific and man^- range far eastward; those of 

 the fresh watei's, svich as a Ku/i/ia, a Goby, and a 

 Sicycfiuiii, are of recent marine origin or simply 

 excursionists from the sea. The}' also have no 

 tale to tell. 



The Mollusks will be noticed in a future num- 

 ber. 



THE LAKC.KST HIKl). 



We are somewhat inclined to call in question 

 Mr. Harting's statement, in the opening sen- 

 tence of his article on the Largest Bird that 

 Flies, that "If the subject of the inquiry were the 

 largest bird that ever lived there can be little 

 doubt that the palm would have to be awarded 

 to the extinct New Zealand Moa [Dinornis 

 iua.vi)>ius\ of which the total heig"ht was about 

 10 feet, the tibia or thig-h bone (sic) measuring 

 a yard in length". If by largest is meant the 

 tallest this is very possibly correct, although 

 ^Kpyoniis iiii^ciis would be a formidable rival, 

 but if by largest is meant bulkiest, or heaviest, 

 Dinoruis would probably be forced to yield the 

 palm to ^Kpyornis and this in turn to one of the 

 gigantic extinct birds of Patagonia, such as 

 Phororhacos loni^issiuuis or Brontornis. Dinor- 

 uis, as indicated by its skeleton, was a "leggy", 

 long-necked bird, not especially heavy for its 

 height, although far exceeding the Ostrich in 

 this respect. ^Epyornis on the other hand was 

 heavily built while Brontornis was probably the 

 most massive bird known, the metatarsus, 

 although but 16 inches long, measuring 5 inches 

 across the head and 3 inches across the center of 

 the shaft, being much heavier than the tibia of 

 the famous racehorse Lexington. The corres- 

 ponding bone in a large Diuornis, while 18 

 inches long, is but 3^ inches in the widest part 

 and but 2 inches across the centre of the shaft. 

 The length of this tarsus is approached by that 

 of ^-Iipyor)iis ingcns, whose tarsus is 16 inches 

 long" and much stouter than that of Dinornis, in- 

 dicating a much heavier bii'd, and possibly "the 

 largest bird that ever lived". — F. A. L. 



COKKECTION. 



We have been requested to make a correction 

 of a typographical error which occurred in Mr. 

 Ernest Seton Thompson's "Notes for Observa- 

 tion of Habits of Birds" published in the Sep- 

 tember Number, (p. 6). The date of publication 

 of the original draft was given as 1898; it should 

 have been 1888 and was so corrected in the proof 

 but the correction was not attended to by the 

 printers. We regret the error and ask Mr, 

 Seton Thompson's pardon. 



