496 KIWI 
belong to the newly described A. mantelli, and some careful observa- 
tions on its habits in captivity were published by Wolley and 
another (Zoologist, pp. 3409, 3605).1 Subsequently the Society 
has received several other live examples of this form, besides one of 
the real A. australis (Proc. 1872, p. 861), some of A. oweni, and one 
of a supposed fourth species, 4. haasti, characterized in 1871 by the 
late Mr. Potts (dis, 1872, p. 35; Trans. N. Zeal. Inst. iv. p. 204, 
Vv. p: LD)? 
The Kiwis form a group of the Subclass RAtit#, to which the 
rank of an Order has been fitly assigned, as they differ in many 
important particulars from any of the other existing forms of Ratite 
birds. The most obvious feature the Apteryges afford is the pres- 
ence of a back toe, while the extremely aborted condition of the 
wings, the position of the nostrils—almost at the tip of the bill— 
and the absence of an aftershaft in the feathers, are characters 
“nearly as manifest, and others not less determinative though more 
Heap or APTERYX, (From Buller.) 
recondite will be found on examination. The Kiwis are peculiar 
to New Zealand, and it is believed that A. mantelli is the repre- 
sentative in the North Island of the southern A. australis, both 
being of a dark reddish-brown, longitudinally striped with light 
yellowish-brown, while 4. owent, of a light greyish brown trans- 
versely barred with black, is said to occur in both islands. About 
the size of a large domestic Fowl, they are birds of nocturnal 
habit, sleeping, or at least inactive, by day, feeding mostly on earth- 
worms, but occasionally swallowing berries, though in captivity 
they will eat flesh suitably minced. Sir W. Buller writes (b. New 
Zeal. p. 362; ed. 2, 11. p. 313) :— 
1 This bird in 1859 laid an egg, and afterwards continued to lay one or two more 
every year. In 1865 a male of the same species was introduced, but though a 
strong disposition to breed was shewn on the part of both, and the eggs, after 
the custom of the Ratitz, were incubated by him, no progeny was hatched (Proc. 
Zool. Soc. 1868, p. 329). 
2 A fine series of figures of all these supposed species is given by Rowley 
(Orn. Miscell. i. pls. 1-6). Some others, as 4A. maxima (from Stewart Island), 
A. haasti, A. mollis and A. fusca, have also been indicated, but proof of their 
validity has yet to be adduced. 
