BuLLER. — On Certain Sjyecies of N.Z. Birds. 



125 



of Rallus philippensis and Rallus dieffenbachii, and then compare tliem with 

 the figure Captain Hutton has given of the head of Rallus modestus. 



Fig. 1. — E. philippensis. Fig. 2. — E. dieffenbachii. 



Ifc -will, I think, be at once manifest that what Captain Hutton says of the 

 bill of Rallus modestus, as compared with R. philip)pensis, applies with equal 

 force to that of R. dieffenbachii. 



No two species of Rail, I should say, are more readily distinguishable 

 than Rallus j^hiliiypensis and R. dieffenbachii. I have rejected siib-generic 

 distinctions altogether in my work, or I would willingly have referred these 

 forms to different sub-genera, as was originally proposed by the late Mr. 

 G. E,. Gray. No naturalist who had actually seen the birds would attempt to 

 unite them as a species. 



The fallacy of Captain Hutton's case is, that he labours to disprove a 

 proposition of his own making, for no one ever asserted that Rallus philip- 

 pensis and Rallus modestus were the same. 



Captain Hutton is in error in stating that " -K. 2yhili2)pensis has no claw at 

 the end of the thumb." The claw is well developed and very sharp. [The 

 specimen submitted measures -25 of an inch in length.] 



Teibonyx mortieri, Du Bus. 



The introduction to my " Birds of New Zealand" contains a notice of the 

 occui'rence in Otago of a living example of Trihonyx mortieri. But from 

 Captain Hutton's letter to "The Ibis" of 1st Jvxly last, it would seem that the 

 bird brought home by Mr. Bills was obtained at Hobart Town, and kept for 



