66 



without doubt now extinct ; and, so far as is known, the only preserved specimen of it in 

 the world is the one which I have had the honour of naming, and of which an excellent 

 portrait by Mr. Keulemans accompanies this article. It is now in a private collection, having 

 been obtained from- the Museum authorities at Wellington by exchange.* 



I will now explain how I made the discovery of this new species. On my last visit 

 to Nelson I was informed by Mr. Martin, the well-known taxidermist, and a most observant 



* This is the specimen, from Wairarapa, in the North Island, referred to in 2nd ed. vol. L, p. 199, as being then 

 in the Colonial Museum, and as being " several shades darker than those from the South Island, the whole of the 

 plumage being deeply stained with ferruginous," and as having " the facial disc washed with fulvous." 



Mr. Walter Rothschild, who has examined this specimen, is of opinion that it represents a very young 

 bird, and thinks that, before finally accepting it as a distinct species, it ought to be compared with Sceloglaux 

 albifacies of a similar age. Dr. Hartert, who apparently agrees, says that, according to his view, the rufous face 

 is the only distinguishing character. Professor Newton and Dr. Sharpe (both acknowledged experts) have pro- 

 nounced it to be, in their opinion, an adult bird, as to which I, also, have not the slightest doubt ; whilst, on 

 the other hand, is the significant fact that a very young male of Sceloglaux albifacies which passed through 

 my hands had a conspicuously white face. It appears to me that the condition of the secondaries in the type 

 S. rufifacies, which are much worn and abraded— showing that the bird had passed its first moult— sufficiently 

 negatives Mr. Rothschild's assumption of its being an immature bird, or, as he expresses it, "an extremely 

 young, hardly fledged Sceloglaux." 



The point is of so much importance that I offer no excuse for placing on record the two communications 

 I have received. 



Professor Newton writes: "Having just examined your Owl, with Dr. Gadow, I write at once. First, I 

 should say that Sceloglaux albifacies is a species of which I know very little. The only specimen I have ever 

 looked at very closely is the one we have here, which came from your collection, and has a defective tail. I 

 must, at some time or other, have examined the Sceloglaux in the Norwich Museum, but that would be about 

 forty years ago at the least. The difference in colour is of course very striking, but knowing what occurs 

 in so many other Owls— where you have a rufous phase and a grey one of the same species— I rather hesitate 

 to declare the difference specific. As to the age of your specimen : Dr. Gadow at once exclaimed that it was 

 young, but I agree with you that the fresh condition of some of the secondaries compared with the abraded 

 state of others shows that the bird had moulted, though not necessarily to be in adult plumage. You know 

 that our Tawny or Brown Owl is often three or four years before it gets rid of its tawny dress and assumes 

 the grey or brown one ; meanwhile the character of the markings continues to be juvenile ; and so I think, 

 with Dr. Gadow, that it is with your specimen. It is not easy to describe the change that takes place, but 

 it is that the markings of the fully adult bird are mainly transverse, or show a transverse tendency, while 

 those of the young are more longitudinal. This seems to be a more or less general rule in Owls, as in 

 some other birds. Even here, and still more I think on the Continent, it was some time before people got to 

 know that the rufous or brown (or grey) Owls were one and the same species, the commonly (mis)called 

 Syrnium aluco; and in America it is within comparatively few years that the Red and Grey Scops Owls have 

 been admitted to be but phases of the same species. I see no reason why it should not be the same with 

 Sceloglaux; and though I do not blame you in the least for describing your specimen from the North Island as 

 distinct from the old species of the South, I think that if I were you, I would not express myself too strongly 

 on the matter, for it seems to me quite within the bounds of possibility that the former is the rufous phase of 

 the latter. You may have seen young S. albifacies which are not rufous, but that is, if I am not mistaken, 

 the way with Syrnium aluco (or, as I prefer to call it, Strix stridula) in Scandinavia, where the tawny 

 plumage is not commonly met with, and I rather think that the same has been observed, in some districts, 

 with the American Scops asio. 



" Whatever the result may be, it is a good thing that you should figure this specimen. You must, I think, 

 admit the possibility of its being the red phase of the old species. It would be a matter of very great interest 

 to know that so peculiar a form, as Sceloglaux undoubtedly is, was subject to the same dichroism as are so 

 many other Owls." 



Dr. Bowdler Sharpe writes as follows: — "I have examined the type of Sceloglaux rufifacies, and I should 

 say that it is an old bird and not a young one. The worn secondaries appear to me to prove the bird to be 

 an adult one, and, in addition to the difference of size between the North and South Island species, I think the 

 colour warrants their being separated as distinct species." 



Mr. Rothschild discovered that the taxidermist had skilfully replaced the tail of this specimen with that of an 

 Australian Owl (Ninox boobok) ; but nothing turns upon that, as I have not made the tail a specific character. 



