GARE-FOWL 305 
place of the Razor-bill’s thin white line, while the bill itself bore 
eight or more deep transverse grooves instead of the smaller 
number and the ivory-like mark possessed by the species last 
named. Otherwise the coloration was similar in both, and there 
is satisfactory evidence that the Gare-fowl’s winter-plumage dif- 
fered from that of the breeding-season just as is ordinarily the case 
in other members of the Family Alcidx to which it belongs. The 
most striking characteristic of the Gare-fowl, however, was the 
comparatively abortive condition of its wings, the distal portions 
of which, though the bird was just about twice the linear dimen- 
sions of the Razor-bill, were almost exactly of the same size as in 
that species—proving, if more direct evidence were wanting, its 
inability to fly. 
The most prevalent misconception concerning the Gare-fowl is 
one which has been repeated so often, and in books of such gener- 
ally good repute and wide dispersal, that a successful refutation 
seems almost hopeless. This is the notion that it was a bird 
possessing a very high northern range, and consequently to be 
looked for by Arctic explorers. How this error arose would take 
too long to tell, but the fact remains indisputable that, setting 
aside general assertions resting on no evidence worthy of attention, 
there is but a single record deserving any credit at all! of a single 
example of the species having been observed within the Arctic 
Circle, and this, according to the late Prof. J. T. Reinhardt, who 
had the best means of ascertaining the truth, is open to grave 
doubt.2 It is clear that the older ornithologists let their imagina- 
tion get the better of their knowledge or their judgment, and 
their statements have been blindly repeated by most of their 
successors. Another error which, if not so widely spread, is at 
least as serious, since Sir R. Owen (Lncyel. Brit. ed. 8, xvii. p. 176 ; 
Palxontology, p. 400) unhappily gave it countenance, is that this 
bird “has not been specially hunted down like the dodo and 
dinornis, but by degrees has become more scarce.” Now, if any 
reliance can be placed upon the testimony of former observers, the 
first part of this statement is absolutely untrue. Of the Dopo we 
know that the mode of its extinction is open to conjecture, a strong 
suspicion existing that though indirectly due to man’s acts it was 
accomplished by his thoughtless agents. The extinction of the 
Dinornis (Moa) lies beyond the range of recorded history, and 
evidence that the whole population of Moas was done to death by 
1 I cannot attach importance to the later statements of Herr L. Brodtkorb 
(Mitth. Orn. Ver. Wien, 1884, pp. 67-69). His story was sifted nearly 30 years 
before by the late Mr. Wolley. 
2 The specimen is in the Museum of Copenhagen ; the doubt lies as to the 
locality “where it was obtained, whether at Diseo, which is within, or at 
Fiskernis, which is without, the Arctic Circle. 
20 
