386 



I. — Platycercus alpinus, Buller. 



Dr. Finsch disallows this species on the ground that the differences which 

 characterize it are "by no means specific, and only indicate the young bird." 

 Here, v at once, we have an illustration of the mistakes into which even the 

 most careful closet naturalists are apt to fall, from a mere comparison of dried 

 specimens. I have obtained the young of Platycercus auriceps from the nest, 

 and caged it to maturity. From the first the frontal band and thigh spots 

 were crimson, and the only perceptible change was in the general tints of the 

 plumage. On the other hand, I have known a caged specimen, coloured as in 

 my P. alpinus, which was, to my certain knowledge, more than five years old, 

 and in which there was no indication of a change from orange to crimson. It 

 is clear, therefore, that the peculiarities in the coloration of my bird are not 

 attributable to immaturity. But, as already pointed o\it, there is also a very 

 manifest difference in the size: P. alpinus being much smaller than P. auriceps, 

 as the latter is less than P. pacificus. Apart from this, Dr. Haast (to whom I 

 am indebted for my first examples) writes thus on the habits of the bird : — " I 

 send specimens of both (i.e., the crimson-fronted and the orange-fronted). 

 These two kinds occur always together, but in some localities the first, and in 

 others the second is predominant. You find both kinds in all seasons ; therefore we 

 cannot suppose that the orange-fronted is the young of the other. In its habits 

 it is not so bold as the crimson-fronted bird ;" and in a subsequent letter he 

 remarks, " the last named species is a much smaller bird than the two former 

 \P. pacificus and P. auriceps], and its habits are also different." 



Admitting that the differences which characterize this bird are constant, 

 and that they are sufficiently obvious to mark a distinct race, my position - is 

 established. Whether the aberrant form is to be regarded as a " species " or 

 as a well-defined "variety" in which the distinguishing characters are constant, 

 need not be here discussed, for it at once raises that qucestio vexata, " What is 

 a species '? " On what I take to be the true definition of a species, P. alpinus 

 is clearly entitled to rank as specifically distinct from the other members of the 

 group. 



Since the date of my notice in " The Ibis," I have discovered that this 

 bird is not restricted to the South Island exclusively, the caged specimen 

 referred to above having been obtained in the Wellington province. Never- 

 theless it is extremely rare in the North Island. Nor does it appear to be 

 confined in its range to the higher elevations, and the specific name I have 

 given is perhaps not quite appropriate. It was suggested by the following 

 note from my excellent friend Dr. Haast, who has the credit of the discovery : 

 — " We shot this pretty bird in the Oxford Ranges, and among the forest 

 vegetation in our Alps, at an elevation of 2500 feet. 



Dr. Haast's remarks on the peculiar local distribution of P. auriceps and 

 P. alpinus apply also to the two species that are common in the North Island. 

 Platycercus auriceps largely predominates in the northern portions of the 

 Island, and P. pacificus in the southern, although both species are to be met 

 with in every district. 



II. — Nestor occidentalis, Buller. 



Dr- Finsch remarks of two specimens foi'warded to him by Dr. Haast, 

 and identified as Nestor meridionalis, that they " most probably" represent my 

 new species, because they were obtained from the "same locality," viz., — the 

 West Coast of the South Island, but Dr. Finsch is perhaps not aware that the 

 region thus indicated is very extensive, ranging through 7 clegs, in latitude, 

 for a distance of five hundred miles, and that in limited areas of this district, 

 without doribt, are several birds which have never been found elsewhere. 



