BuLLER. — On the Ornithology of New Zealand. 113 



Hieracidea novce-zealandice, Gml. 



The discussion as to the alleged distinctness of Hieracidea novce-zealandioi 

 and H. hrunnea 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, cai*efully 

 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 hrunneus, of Gould, has been pre-occupied by Bechstein, 

 who thus called the Common Kesti-el of Europe, and that consequently our 

 small bird, if allowed to be distinct from H. novce-zealandice, must bear 

 another title. Mr. Sharpe considers that this should be Hieracidea 

 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 

 Pecile (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 (111. Orn., II., p. 51) 

 has proved to be the young of Circus jardinii, figured in Gould's " Birds of 

 Australia" (pi. 27), and the name of C. gouldi, proposed by Bonaparte 

 (Consp. Gen. Av., I., 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 jjages 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., p. 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 



