﻿466 
  Letters, 
  Extracts, 
  Notices, 
  l^c. 
  

  

  There 
  remains 
  still 
  tlie 
  different 
  strueture 
  of 
  tlie 
  trachea, 
  

   but 
  I 
  do 
  not 
  see 
  why 
  that 
  should 
  not 
  also 
  acquire 
  its 
  new 
  

   form 
  only 
  when 
  the 
  bird 
  is 
  fully 
  adult. 
  

  

  I 
  am, 
  

   '8 
  Graveland, 
  Hilversum, 
  Yours 
  &C., 
  

  

  Holland, 
  April 
  1893. 
  F. 
  E. 
  Blaauw. 
  

  

  Sir, 
  — 
  In 
  some 
  "Oological 
  Notes 
  ^^ 
  by 
  Mr. 
  Alfred 
  North 
  

   (Proc. 
  Linn. 
  Soc. 
  N. 
  S. 
  W. 
  (2) 
  vii. 
  pp. 
  393-398, 
  1892), 
  the 
  

   author 
  makes 
  remarks 
  on 
  the 
  eggs 
  of 
  Cyanorhamjihus 
  rayneri, 
  

   Gr., 
  from 
  Norfolk 
  Island, 
  and, 
  after 
  having 
  alluded 
  to 
  my 
  

   identification 
  of 
  this 
  bird 
  with 
  C. 
  cooki 
  (Cat. 
  B. 
  Brit. 
  Mus. 
  

   XX. 
  p. 
  585; 
  see 
  also 
  Ann. 
  & 
  Mag. 
  Nat. 
  Hist. 
  (6) 
  vii. 
  p. 
  64), 
  

   comes 
  to 
  the 
  following 
  conclusion 
  : 
  — 
  " 
  If 
  C. 
  rayneri 
  of 
  

   Norfolk 
  Island 
  is 
  the 
  same 
  as 
  C. 
  cooki 
  of 
  New 
  Zealand, 
  as 
  

   stated 
  by 
  Count 
  Salvadori, 
  I 
  should 
  not 
  be 
  surprised 
  to 
  find, 
  

   upon 
  the 
  examination 
  of 
  a 
  large 
  series 
  of 
  skins 
  of 
  the 
  Red- 
  

   fronted 
  Parrakeet 
  of 
  Norfolk 
  Island, 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  only 
  an 
  

   occasional, 
  and 
  by 
  no 
  means 
  constant, 
  variety 
  of 
  C. 
  nuvce- 
  

   zealandiee, 
  not 
  meriting 
  even 
  subspecific 
  distinction.^'' 
  

  

  Mr. 
  North, 
  Avho 
  does 
  not 
  seem 
  to 
  have 
  ever 
  seen 
  a 
  Cyano- 
  

   rhamphus 
  from 
  Norfolk 
  Island, 
  is 
  mistaken 
  as 
  regards 
  my 
  

   admitting 
  that 
  the 
  type 
  of 
  C. 
  cooki 
  ever 
  came 
  from 
  New 
  

   Zealand. 
  In 
  fact, 
  as 
  the 
  "habitat" 
  of 
  this 
  species 
  [op. 
  cit. 
  

   p. 
  585) 
  I 
  have 
  given 
  " 
  Norfolk 
  Island 
  " 
  only. 
  The 
  locality 
  

   ""New 
  Zealand" 
  to 
  specimen 
  a 
  (the 
  type 
  of 
  Platycercus 
  

   cooki) 
  is 
  included 
  between 
  square 
  brackets, 
  which 
  means 
  

   that, 
  according 
  to 
  my 
  belief, 
  it 
  is 
  wrong. 
  In 
  fact, 
  the 
  alleged 
  

   locality 
  is 
  not 
  supported 
  by 
  any 
  reliable 
  authority, 
  the 
  speci- 
  

   men 
  having 
  belonged 
  to 
  the 
  old 
  " 
  Bullock 
  Collection." 
  In 
  

   conclusion 
  I 
  may 
  say 
  that 
  I 
  am 
  quite 
  persuaded 
  that 
  the 
  type 
  

   of 
  C. 
  cooki 
  (like 
  the 
  type 
  of 
  C. 
  rayneri) 
  is 
  a 
  specimen 
  from 
  

   Norfolk 
  Island, 
  which 
  has 
  been 
  wrongly 
  labelled 
  "New 
  

   Zealand," 
  and 
  that 
  C. 
  cooki 
  is 
  a 
  perfectly 
  distinct 
  species, 
  

   quite 
  different 
  from 
  C. 
  nova-zealandia. 
  

  

  If 
  the 
  Australian 
  and 
  New-Zealandian 
  naturalists 
  will 
  take 
  

   the 
  trouble 
  to 
  bring 
  together 
  specimens 
  of 
  the 
  genus 
  Cyano- 
  

  

  