77 



SCELOGLAUX RUFIFACIES BULLER. 



Sceloglaux rufifacies Buller, Ibis 1904, p. 639 ; id. Suppl. B. New Zealand II, p. 65, pi. VII 

 (1906). 



ORIGINAL description : "Adult female: Similar to Sceloglaux albifacies, 

 but appreciably smaller ; face dull rufous brown, instead of being white ; 

 crown and nape blackish brown ; entire upper surface strongly suffused 

 with rufous ; quills marked with regular transverse bars and a terminal edging 

 of rufous brown ; tail-feathers uniform yellowish brown, obscurely barred with 

 pale brown ; bill lemon -yellow ; feet dull yellow." 



" Wairarapa district, near Wellington, North Island, in the summer 

 1868-9." 



This supposed " species " is a very doubtful one. A close examination 

 in the Tring Museum of the type (which was offered me for such a high price 

 that I did not feel justified in buying it, fond as I am of possessing extinct 

 forms, types and varieties) by Messrs. Hartert, Hellmayr and myself proved 

 beyond doubt to all three of us that the specimen was not fully adult, but 

 showed signs of immaturity. If I said to Sir Walter Buller that it was an 

 " extremely young, hardly fledged Sceloglaux,'" this was certainly incorrect, 

 and was perhaps just an exclamation after a hasty preliminary examination, 

 for the bird is of course fully fledged and has passed, at least partially, through 

 one moult of the feathers. On the other hand, both Professor Newton's and 

 Dr. Sharpe's reputed statements that the owl in question is fully adult are 

 not correct. It certainly shows unmistakable signs of immaturity, as noticed 

 at once by Dr. Gadow (cf. Newton's letter on p. 66, I.e.), by Hartert, Hellmayr 

 and myself. Moreover Professor Newton — though Buller says he " pronounced 

 it to be an adult bird " — also admits that the bird " had moulted, though not 

 necessarily to be in adult plumage," and he continues that he thinks the 

 " character of the markings continues to be juvenile." 



Having thus discussed the age of this owl, the question must be 

 considered if it is different from S. albifacies from the South Island. This 

 is less easily done. Buller described it as a "new species," and mentions 

 among the distinctive characters (see above) the colour of the tail. The 

 tail, however, is " skillfully " (as Buller calls it, though I should use a less 

 complimentary adverb) stuck in, and does not belong to a Sceloglaux, but to 

 an Australian Ninox, and also some feathers on the neck are foreign. The 

 wings being abraded, its slightly smaller length is not very significant. 

 Certainly, however, the colouration in general is slightly more rufous than 



