142 DENDROCYGNA ARCUATA 



for New Caledonia and of Rayner (fide Wiglesworth, 1891) and E. L. Layard (1876) for the Fiji Islands. 



It occurs and breeds in Australia, excepting in the southern part, though it is probably confined 

 chiefly to the neighborhood of the coasts. In the northwest it was found common on the Fitzroy 

 . River (North, 1898; Soderberg, 1919), in Meda (Hartert, 1905) and farther north on the 



South Alligator River (Hartert, 1905) and at Port Essington (Gould, 1865), at all of 

 which places it seems to be common. It was also found in West Australia at Derby (Ramsay, 1888). 

 In the north it is recorded from Port Darwin, Gulf of Carpentaria, and Cape York (Ramsay, 1888), 

 and on the whole it seems to be most common in the North Territory of South Australia (North, 

 1913). Eylmann (1911) found it in the interior of this territory. 



The species appears to be well represented also in Queensland at Rockingham Bay, Port Denison 

 and Wide Bay (Ramsay, 1888) while it has been found breeding at Redcliff, Upper Dawson River, 

 Queens- and at Coomooboolaroo, Duaringa (North, 1913). Robinson and Laverock (1900) 



land say it is common at Cooktown. According to North (1913) it is found chiefly on the 



northern coasts in New South Wales, though Ramsay (1888) has reported it for the interior, and Hall 

 New South (I 909 ) found it on the Murray River. Cox and Hamilton (Proc. Linn. Soc. New South 

 Wales Wales, ser. 2, vol. 4, p. 422, 1890) state that it is rare at Mudgee, in the interior. It 



Victoria ^as a ' so oeen f° un d on the Richmond and Clarence Rivers (Ramsay, 1888), and rarely 



in Victoria (Mathews, 1914-15). In an old paper Ramsay (1876) even gave Tasmania 

 as its habitat, though this was probably by error. 



There is one record of this species occurring at Aigues Mortes, Dept. Gard, south France, March 

 30, 1909, by Menegaux (1909). It cannot have been anything but an escaped bird, though this well- 

 _, known writer says none was missed from zoological gardens, and he is inclined to think 



it was driven by a storm. 



GENERAL HABITS 

 Haunts. Very little is known of the life-history of these Tree Ducks. Mathews 

 (1914-15) confesses that their habits in Australia are practically unknown. All 

 species of Tree Ducks are more or less alike in so far as they are nocturnal and in- 

 habit fresh-water swamps or lagoons, coming to the coast only in times of drought. 



Wariness. In northwestern Australia these birds were found to be exceedingly 

 tame, permitting an approach to within thirty or forty yards before they moved. 

 They then stood up and gathered closely together, their bodies and heads erect, af- 

 fording a target that made it possible to bring down many at one shot (Keartland, 

 fide North, 1913). Evidently, then, under primitive conditions they were extremely 

 tame. Such appears to be the case also in the Philippines, for R. C. McGregor 

 (1909) found that they could be killed without taking the precautions usually neces- 

 sary in duck-shooting, and Whitehead (Ibis, ser. 7, vol. 5, p. 501, 1899), while hunt- 

 ing on Samar, had them rise time and again within thirty yards of his gun. The 

 birds appear to be rather trusting in New Guinea, also (Meyer, 1894), but in south- 

 east Borneo, where they have been systematically trapped by the natives, they are 

 said to be very wild and difficult to shoot (Sclater, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1863, 

 p. 224). According to Robinson and Laverock (1900) the birds are very shy and quick 

 on the wing in North Queensland. 



