BuLLER.—0On the Ornithology of New Zealand. 113 
Hieracidea nove-zealandie, Gml. 
The discussion as to the alleged distinctness of Hieracidea nove-zealandice 
and H. brunnea has been carried a step further since the date of Dr. Finsch’s 
paper. In the introduction to my * Birds of New Zealand" (p. 15) I have 
adduced further evidence in support of the view adopted in the body of the 
work, and it appears to me that what is now wanted to clear up the question 
is an extensive series of fresh specimens from different localities, carefully 
sexed and measured, together with further observations on their habits. 
It may be mentioned that Mr. Sharpe, who contributes to the argument 
in a capital letter to “The Ibis" (1873, pp. 327—330), has pointed out that 
the name of Falco brunneus, of Gould, has been pre-occupied by Bechstein, 
who thus called the Common Kestrel of Europe, and that consequently our 
small bird, if allowed to be distinct from H. nove-zealandie, must bear 
another title Mr. Sharpe considers that this should be  Zieracidea 
australis (Homb. et Jacq.), but it seems to me that this is only a synonym of 
the older species, and that the right name to fall back upon is Falco ferox, of 
Peale (U.S. Expl. Exped., 1848, p. 67). 
Circus gouldi, Bonap. 
I observe that Dr. Finsch adheres to the title Circus assimilis. This is 
certainly untenable, for, as first pointed out by Mr. Gurney (“ Ibis,” 1870, 
p. 536), the true Circus assimilis of Jardine and Selby (Ill. Orn., IL, p. 51) 
has proved to be the young of Circus jardinii, figured in Gould's “ Birds of 
Australia” (pl 27), and the name of C. gouldi, proposed by Bonaparte 
(Consp. Gen. Av., L, p. 34), therefore stands. 
Dr. Finsch says he “should like to see an old specimen, in order to prove 
whether this species ever assumes the dress of the old Australian bird." He 
will find every condition of plumage fully described at pages 11 and 12 of my 
* Birds of New Zealand," a perusal of which cannot fail, I think, to convince 
him of the identity of our bird with that inhabiting Australia and Tasmania. 
Halcyon vagans, Less. 
Dr. Finsch says that “ having examined a large series of this Kingfisher, 
he considers it a good species.” But it was this author himself who originally 
disputed its validity. He referred our bird to Halcyon sanctus, and was 
followed by Captain Hutton (Cat. Birds of N.Z. р. 3). I have always 
contended for its being a distinct species, and Mr. R. B. Sharpe, in his 
beautiful monograph on the family (published in 1870), felt no hesitation in 
according it that rank. 
I have great respect for Dr. Finsch’s judgment as a critical ornithologist, 
but I fear he is sometimes in danger (from the very paucity of materials at his 
command) of generalizing on insufficient data. In the present case, for 
P 
