._* > 
tae 
* 
Butier.—Remarks on Dr. Finsch’s Paper on N.Z. Ornithology. 195 
4. In 
7. 
expressed his conviction that they belonged not only to the 
same family, but to “the same genus.” (See my Notes, pp. 
203-204, ‘Trans. N. Z. Inst.,”’ Vol. VII.) 
a former paper (Trans. N. Z. Inst.,” Vol. V., p. 207) Dr. 
Finsch pronounced Myioscopus longipes and M. albifrons to be 
hardly separable, but he now acknowledges that he has never 
examined the latter species. The two birds are quite distinct, 
and represent each other in the North and South Islands. 
. Finsch appears to consider Gerygone sylvestris a good species. 
Unfortunately, Mr. Potts has not deposited his type with the 
rest of his collection in the Canterbury Museum, and I am 
unable to qualify my former opinion respecting it. 
. Finsch professes to put the synonymy of our New Zealand 
Godwit right ; but it was I who did this, as the following pas- 
sage will show :—‘ Drs. Finsch and Hartland, in their excellent 
work on the birds of Central Polynesia, have correctly referred 
our bird to the species described by Mr. Gould under the name 
of Limosa uropygialis; but as will be seen on reference to the 
historical synonymy given above, this name has no claim what- 
ever to recognition. There are no less than five recorded 
names of antecedent date ; and in settling questions of nomen- 
clature, I shall, as far as possible, adhere to the established 
rule of adopting in every case the oldest admissible title. There 
can be no doubt that this was the species originally described 
(Naum Vig. Deutschl., viii., p.429—1836) as, Limosa baueri ; and 
I have accordingly restored its original name. But even sup- 
posing that, as the authors already cited have contended, 
Naumann’s description is too vague to fix the species, and that 
Gray’s L. brevipes is open to the same objection, then Limosa 
Nova Zealandia (Gray) would undoubtedly stand in reference 
to a name bestowed by Gould at a later period.’’—* Birds of 
New Zealand,” p. 199.) 
Murie has cleared up the question of Rallus modestus being 
distinct, by an examination of the skeleton. (See Prof. Newton’s 
Notes, Trans. N.Z. Inst., Vol. VII., p. 511.) 
8. A comparison of Gray’s type of Hudyptes pachyrhynchus with the 
specimens of FE. chrysocomus in the British Museum satisfied 
me that they ought to be united. With regard to KF. nigrivestis, 
I think I am right in stating that Mr. Gould, who distinguished 
the species, agreed with me that it could not stand. 
