, 
140 Transactions.—Zoology. 
characteristics of form and colour as would enable the ornithologist to recognize 
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 learnt from the birds themselves. Are these peculiarities sufficiently 
marked to justify a separation of our Yalconide 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 Trans. N.Z. Inst, Vol. Is 
р. 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 i& would be found 
necessary to expunge Z/ieracidea brunnea from our list of species, and to 
regard it as H. nove-zealandie in an immature state. T т * 
Since the publication of the Essay I have been able to determine satisfactorily 
this disputed point. 
“In December last, during a visit to the Taupo district, I was fortunate 
enough to discover a nest of this hawk, containing three young ones. The 
parent birds were beautiful specimens of H. novæ-zealandiæ. 
One of them shortly afterwards died, but the others (which are still alive in 
my aviary) developed in due time into perfect examples of the so-called 
Н. brunnea. It will be seen, therefore, that this form is the young of 
Н. nove-zealandie, and not the female, as suggested by Herr Finsch.” In 
striking contrast to this statement, we find his notice of the Falconidæ in his 
“History of the Birds of New Zealand ;" at page 9, the story of the inmates 
of the nest found in the Taupo district is given as a portion of the history of 
JT. brunnea. Now, will this ‘fresh view of these nestlings induce us to rely 
that Dr. Buller has “been able to determine satisfactorily this disputed 
point"? 
In the introduction to the “ Birds of New Zealand," page xv., may be 
found this passage :—“ Thus Dr. Haast writes to me (under date of March 10, 
1872), concerning the specific distinctness of the Sparrow-hawk and the 
Quai-hawk. І may tell you that on my last journey into the interior I got 
two of the former (i.e. the small species). ^ They were male and female, and I 
secured them at the nest, where they had young ones. The female was а little 
bigger and lighter than the male bird. Both birds were Jull-grown, and 
showed at a glance the impossibility of their ever developing into the large 
and perfectly distinct Quail-hawk.” This reads like strong evidence in favour of 
the two-species theory, but there must be some mistake in this statement. 
