41 

 8. Gerygone assimilis, Buller. 



In my former notes in reply to Dr. Finscli's paper in the Ibis, the following 

 statement occurs : — " I am not aware that I ever met with Gerygone assimilis 

 in the South Island. At any rate, I demur to being held responsible for 

 wrongly named specimens which I have never had an opportunity of iden- 

 tifying." Dr. Haast has cince written, reminding me that in a collection of 

 skins from Canterbury, forwai'ded to me for examination in 1866, there was 

 one which I identified as the young of Gerygone assimilis. I take this oppor- 

 tunity, therefore, of correcting a statement which implied that Dr. Haast was 

 wrong in ascribing to this species a South Island range. At the same time it 

 appears to me highly probable that Dr. Haast mistook the two birds. The 

 specimen sent to me (which is still in my possession) is unquestionably a yoimg 

 bird, and although it is often difficult to distinguish between the young of 

 closely allied species, I am still of opinion that it is referable to G. assimilis. 

 The specimen which Dr. Haast forwaixled to Germany, was " represented to 

 be a female from Banks' Peninsula." Dr. Finsch, in noticing this specimen, 

 states that it agrees in every respect with the description and figure of the true 

 G. Jlaviventris, as given by Gray, except that the "yellowish growth on the 

 under parts and tail coverts is weaker." {Journ. filr Orn., 1870, p. 254.) 

 I perfectly agree with Dr. Finsch that such a bii-d is not separable from the 

 old species j but the form which I propose to distinguish as G. assimilis is 

 larger, and entirely free from the yellowish tinge on the u.nder parts ; and by 

 Dr. Finscli's own showing he has never seen it. 



Having examined a large number of their nests in various parts of the coun- 

 try, I found that, while they invariably exhibited the pensile character, they were 

 as a rule referable to one or the other of two distinct types — the bottle-shaped 

 nest with the porch or vestibule, and the pear-shaped foi-m without the porch. 

 This peculiarity coupled with the significant fact that in some instances the eggs 

 were pure white, in others speckled oi- spotted with red, led me iirst to suspect 

 the existence of two distinct but closely allied species, and the ascertained difier- 

 ence in size and colour which I have already indicated strengthened that view. 

 Tu my Essay 071 New Zealand Ornithology, 1865 (p. 9), I described the two forms 

 of nests, and proposed to distinguish the builder of the larger pear-shaped 

 nest as G. assimilis. Although still of opinion that such a distinction is 

 warranted, I am free to admit that the subject requires further investigation. 

 ]VIy esteemed friend, Captain Hutton writes me : — " I have lately seen several 

 good examples of the porch in the Riroriro's nest, but I think it easy to 

 collect a series from no porch to the most developed, and it seems to me to be 

 due more to accidental circumstances than to specific difference." It will be 

 observed, however, that my correspondent does not appear to have actually 

 found such a series, while in a former letter he states that although he had 



G 



