116 Traixsactions. — Zoology. 



Miro longipes, Garn. 



Miro alhifrons, Gml. 



Dr. FinscL. kindly wrote to me last year, pointing out that these birds 

 ■were not true Petroicce, and j)roposed restoring them to Reichenbach's genus 

 Myioscopus. Upon investigation I found that the genus Miro, of Lesson, 

 had an older claim to recognition, and I accordingly substituted that for 

 Petroica. 



I cannot understand how Dr. Finsch could confound the two species as 

 being " scarcely distinct." It is true that they are closely allied, but they are 

 nevertheless so diflferent in appearance that one specimen of P. longipes could 

 be readily picked out of a hundred or more of P. alhifrons, and vice versd. 

 The former species is confined strictly to the North Island, and the latter to 

 the South Island. 



The habits of these birds, it may be remarked, approaches very nearly to 

 those of the true Erythaci. 



Myiomoira toitoi, Less. 



I have adopted Dr. Finsch 's example in referring this and the allied species 

 {M. macrocephala) to the genus defined by Eeichenbach, to which they clearly 

 belong. 



Sphenoeacus rufescens, BuUer. 



I am much surprised to find Dr. Finsch confounding this very distinct 

 species with Gray's Sphenoeacus fulvus. S. fulvus closely resembles 

 S. punctatus, so much so in fact that I was for some time in doubt whether to 

 keep them separate or not ; and the coloured figures of S. punctatus and 

 aS'. rufescens, facing page 128 of my " Birds of New Zealand," will satisfy the 

 student, at a glance, that these are very distinct sjDecies. 



The specimens in the Canterbury Museum first decided me to retain 

 S. fulvus, at least provisionally, and Capt. Hutton, from an independent 

 examination of the same specimens, appears to have arrived at a similar 

 conclusion. (Cat. Birds of N.Z., p. 9.) 



The type of Sp>lienoeacus fulvus is still in the British Museum. In company 

 with Mr. G. B. Gray, who originally distinguished the species, I made a 

 careful comparison of it with specimens of Sphenoeacus pxmctatus, and 

 ultimately admitted it into my work, but without attempting to figure it. I 

 still look upon it as a doubtful species, and had Dr. Finsch proposed uniting 

 this form (instead of >S'. rufescens) to S. punctatus, there would have been 

 some show of reason for it. 



Creadion carunculatus, Gml. 



It was not the " examination of the types by Capt. Hutton " that proved 

 my G. cinereus to be the young of this species, but the examination by myself 



