THE ZooLoGisT—APRIL, 1875. 4409 
On the Birds of New Zealand. By T. H. Ports, F.LS. 
(Read before the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, December 4, 1873, and 
communicated to the ‘ Zoologist’ by the Author.) 
In offering another small budget of notes on native birds, the 
writer has to express his regret that they are but fragmentary. 
Unfortunately notes on birds in their wild state are necessarily less 
complete than those which can be gathered from the fluttering 
prisoners in the condemned cell of an aviary. The writer having 
been laid under contribution by Dr. Buller, in his ‘ History of the 
Birds of New Zealand,’ is compelled to refer to some mistakes as 
to matters of fact in the ‘ History,’ or else he might be thought to 
concur therein; as to theories, they are the property of any one 
to shape according to fancy. 
Quail-Hawk (Falco Nove-Zealandiz).— Those ornithologists 
who have writen on the Fauna of New Zealand have held conflicting 
opinions on the Falconide. Attempts have been made to prove 
that one species only inhabits these islands; on the other hand, 
evidence has been offered that the Fauna includes at least two 
species. The question involved—of much interest to those who 
care for the Natural History of this country—has its chief difficulty 
in the absence of such marked or distinctive characteristics of form 
and colour as would enable ornithologists to recognise at once 
a specific difference. Messrs. Finsch, Gurney, Hutton and Buller 
have given their opinions, pro and con, but outside the value of 
the evidence that may be got from the critical examination of 
specimens, there remains for consideration the weight that may be 
attached to certain peculiarities that can be learned from the birds 
themselves. Are these peculiarities sufficiently marked to justify 
a separation of our Falconide into two species? The three writers 
just named, as far as we are aware, do not touch on these birds in 
their living state. 
Dr. Buller’s evidence must be sifted to ascertain its value; he 
deals with the living bird, and, at present, inclines towards the 
maintenance of two species. In the ‘Transactions of the New 
Zealand Institute,’ vol. i., p. 106 (1868), he writes :—“In a paper 
forwarded to the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, in June, 
1864, and again in the Essay, I stated my belief that, on a further 
acquaintance with the species it would be found necessary to 
expunge Hieracidea brunnea from our list of species, and to regard 
