MOOR-HEN 591 
has instituted for it a new genus, to which he also refers the preced- 
ing bird. A more extreme development in this direction appears to 
be exhibited by the singular Habroptila wallacii of Gilolo (Proc. Zool. 
Soc. 1860, p. 365, pl. clxxii.), and to some extent by the Puareudiastes 
pacificus of Samoa (op. cit. 1871, p. 25, pl. ii.), but at present little 
is known of either, Of other forms, such as the common Gallinula 
(Erythra) phenicura and Gallirex cinerea of India, as well as the 
South-American species classed in the genus Porphyriops, there is 
not room to speak; but mention must be made of the remarkable 
Australian genus Z’7ribonyx, containing three species (Ann. & Mag. 
NV. H. ser. 3, xx. p. 123), called by the colonists ‘“ Moor-hen” and 
“Native Hen,” which seem to be more terrestrial than aquatic in 
their haunts and habits. 
Allied to all these is the genus Porphyrio, including the bird so 
named by classical writers, and perhaps a dozen other species often 
called Sultanas and Purple Water-hens, 
for they all have a plumage of deep 
blue—some becoming violet, green, or 
black in parts, but preserving the 
white lower tail-coverts so generally 
characteristic of the group; and their 
beauty is enhanced by their scarlet 
bill and legs. Two, P. allent of the Ethiopian Region and the 
South-American P. parva, are of small size. Of the larger species, 
P. cxruleus seems to be the “ Porphyrio ” of the ancients, and inhabits 
certain localities on both sides of the Mediterranean, while the rest 
are widely dispersed within the tropics, and even beyond them, as 
in Australia and New Zealand. But this last country has produced 
a more exaggerated form, Nofornis, which has an interesting and 
perhaps unique history. First described from an imperfect fossil 
skull by Owen (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1848, pp. 2,7; Trans. ii. p. 366, pl.lvi.), 
and at that time thought to be extinct, an example was soon after 
taken alive (Proc. 1850, pp. 209-214, pl. xxi.; Trans. iv. pp. 69-74, 
pl. xxv.), the skin of which (with that of another procured like the 
first by Mr. Walter Mantell) may be seen in the British Museum. 
Other fossil remains were from time to time noted by Prof. Owen ;! 
but it began to be feared that the bird had ceased to exist,? until a 
third example was taken about the year 1879, the skin and most 
PorpuyRio. (After Swainson.) 
1 Thus the leg-bones and what appeared to be the sternum were described and 
figured by him (Zrans. iv. pp. 12,17, pls. ii. iv.), and the pelvis and another 
femur (vii. pp. 369, 373, pls. xlii. xliii.); but the supposed sternum subsequently 
proved not to be that of Notornis, and the author’s attention being called to the 
fact (Proc. 1882, p. 97) he rectified the error (fom. cit. p. 689) which he had 
previously been “inclined to believe” (Z'vrans. viii. p. 120) he had made. 
2 Notwithstanding the statement, which certainly presented some incon- 
gruities, made by Mr, Mackay (Jbis, 1867, p. 144). 
