Iredale. — Kermadec Islands Avifauna. 79 



I now simply give the name of the bird as determined under the above 

 mies, and note the occurrence of the bird as verified by myself with the 

 help of the other members of the party — Messrs. W. R. B. Oliver, S. R. 

 Oliver, W. L. Wallace, and C. E. Warden — and especially of the island 

 settlers, Messrs. Roy and King Bell. 



The latest complete list of the Kermadec avifauna previous to our 

 visit was that of Mr. T. F. Cheeseman, published in these Transactions, 

 vol. 23, p. 216 et seq., 1891. In that paper no fewer than forty 

 species were totalled, but I was not so fortunate as to collate such a 

 number. 



I had instituted comparisons of this avifauna with those of Lord Howe 

 and Norfolk Islands, but deferred making use of my data until such time 

 as further study reinforced my conclusions. 



I find that my friend Mr. W. R. B. Oliver had undertaken a resume of 

 these avifaunas, and from a study of literature arrived at conclusions quite 

 compatible with those of my own. but somewhat different from those he had 

 propounded from his botanical studies alone. I propose here to touch 

 upon these results, as with access to specimens and advice not available to 

 my friend I am able to indicate some improvements and alterations, though 

 in the main I confirm his conclusions. 



Firstly, I would reject all the doubtful records which he not only in- 

 cludes but amplifies. Thus, in his paper on " The Geographic Relation- 

 ships of the Birds of Lord Howe, Norfolk, and the Kermadec Islands ' 

 (Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 44, p. 215, 1912) Oliver adds six names of birds 

 not hitherto recorded from the group — three from skins received by Mr. 

 Cheeseman from Mr. Roy Bell, the fourth a record by himself (which, how- 

 ever, had been already noted six years previously by Ogilvie Grant, Ibis, 

 1905, p. 554), and two otiiers on Mr. Roy Bell's authority. 



Oliver has fairly well gauged the affinities of the Lord Howe avifauna, 

 and I would add the following information. 



Nesolimnas syloestris Sclater has been shown by Mathews ("Birds 

 of Australia,'" vol. 1, p. 191, 1911) to be no relation of the Neozelanic 

 Nesolimnas nor Gallirallus ( = Ocydromus), but congeneric with the New 

 Caledonian TrichoUmnas lafresnayaiuis Verr. & Des Murs., a semi-fiightless 

 descendant of the north Australian Eulabeornis. 



In the same place Mathews (p. 247 et seq.) has gone into the history 

 md examined the supposed specimens of Notornis alba, and has conclusively 

 )roven that the reference of the unique specimen of Fulica alba White to 

 he genus Notornis was incorrect, and that the bird was apparently a fixed 

 Ibinistic species of Porphyrio closely allied to P. melanotus Temminck, 

 id that there can be no good reason for considering it to have any more 

 lationship with New Zealand than with Australia or New Caledonia, 

 orefer the latter source. 

 With regard to Cyanoramphus subflavescens Salv., it has more relation- 

 p with C. cooki Gray of Norfolk Island and C. saisseti Verreaux, the New 

 ledonian form, than with the Neozelanic forms. I would consider the 

 ole of the red-fronted parrakeets as reiJresenting one species, but that 

 above three are closer to each other than to the Neozelanic forms, which 

 lid include the Kermadec race. I might note here that I have examined 

 the birds mentioned in this paper in connection with the forms coin- 

 ed, and that herein my conclusions are given to the best of my ability. 



