Zoologies,' vol. vi., pp. 361-402), and in it he gives his reasons for changing his mind and now 

 considering this form as inseparable from Apteryx australis. In support of this view he publishes 

 a table of comparative measurements, superior size being, admittedly, the chief criterion in this 

 case. He abandons the conclusion which he had put forward with so much confidence when he 

 exhibited his hundred and more specimens in 1893, and treats of the Stewart Island bird as the 

 t}^pical A. australis. He may be right ; but, from the moment I first saw the Dunedin Exhibition 

 example in 1890, I have never wavered in my conviction that this is a distinct species. Of course 

 the whole value of the comparative measurements depends on the authenticity of the specimens. 

 That all the examples of Apteryx lawryi I had sent on to Mr. Eothschild came from Stewart 

 Island is unquestionable, because they were vouched for by Mr. Marklund, who never left the 

 island and collected them there himself, forwarding with every specimen particulars of sex, 

 locality and date. Can the same be said, with any degree of confidence, of the other examples 

 with which Mr. Eothschild compared them, bringing him to the conclusion that Apteryx lawryi 

 and A. australis are undistinguishable ? Most of them, as I conclude, were obtained from 

 Mr. Henry Travers.* Were these sufficiently authenticated? Mr. Travers is an excellent col- 

 lector, and an energetic dealer, but in the latter capacity he has of course to trust very much to 

 others. On one occasion I saw a large number of Apteryx-skins in his store-room, at Wellington, 

 and was allowed to examine them. He expressed his belief that the birds had come from Stewart 

 Island, but not a single skin had any label attached to it. Some of them were undoubtedly 

 Apteryx lawryi, and the rest, so far as I could judge, as unmistakably Apteryx australis. This 

 being the case, it is easy to see how errors might creep into the comparison Mr. Eothschild 

 has instituted, for he could only go by the specimens before him. My own impression is that 

 he had examples of both species, those of Apteryx lawryi having come from Stewart Island, and 

 the rest from the mainland. 



If Mr. Eothschild is right in his general conclusion, then it is clear to my mind that Apteryx 

 australis cannot be distinguished as a species from A. mantelli — a view already advocated by Dr. 

 Finsch (Journ. fur Orn., 1872, pp. 263-7) ; for the Stewart Island Kiwi, although generally of 

 appreciably larger size, comes nearer to the last-named species than to the former. Its chief 

 difference is in the absence of the stiff points to the feathers on the nape and hind-neck. Mr. 

 Eothschild now pronounces Apteryx lawryi and A. australis one and the same species. Professor 

 Newton has expressed his belief that Apteryx lawryi aud A. mantelli are one and the same, the 

 difference in size being merely an incident of locality. If both these views have something to 

 support them, then it would be safer to treat all three forms as sub-species derived from one 

 common stock ; and that, no doubt, is as near the truth as we shall get. The brownish-black Kiwi 

 (Apteryx bulleri, Sharpe), regarded by Mr. Eothschild as identical with A. mantelli, would come 

 into the same category as representing a fourth sub-species. For the purpose of this history, 

 however, it will be more convenient to treat them all as distinct and separate species, whilst 

 indicating their points of resemblance. This seems the more necessary since I have rejected 

 the trinomial system, now so much in vogue. They may all grade into one another, from par- 

 ticular points of view, but that really does not matter. As I take it, the Brown Kiwis form one 

 distinct group, and the Grey or Spotted Kiwis another, all having undoubtedly sprung from 

 a common ancestor. We may, I think, regard the separation into species, sub-species, and 

 varieties as artificial distinctions for the greater convenience of classification and description. 

 This plan is consistent, too, with the now generally accepted doctrine that, in the great scheme of 



* Mr. Eothschild, writing of this form (I. c, p. 366), says: "Recently a good number have been captured on 

 Stewart Island, and I saw, not long ago, a whole bundle of them put up for sale in an auction room in London." 

 These skins, I am credibly informed, came from Mr. Henry Travers, and were all from the South Island. 



