187 



The next was by Von Haast, in 1873, who enumerated 10 species, divided 

 into 4 genera. The third was Lydekker's, in 1891, who acknowledged 23 

 species, divided into 5 genera. Then came Hutton's, in 1892, which left out 

 Megalapteryx, with its then known 2 species, and acknowledged 26 species, 

 divided into 7 genera. Lastly we have Professor Parker's, in 1895, in which 

 again Megalapteryx is left out, and 21 species are acknowledged, divided into 

 5 genera. There has been a great amount of controversy as to the number 

 of species of Moas which really ought to be distinguished, and of late years 

 there has been a tendency to unite most of the species as synonyms, the 

 authors declaring that bones vary to such a degree that all the characters 

 relied on for the distinguishing of the various species were individual 

 variations, and that, besides, it was impossible that so many distinct forms 

 could have occurred in such a small area. The extreme of this lumping 

 was reached when Professor Forbes, in the Bulletin of the Liverpool 

 Museums, III, pp. 27 and 28 (1900), divided the Moas into six genera, each 

 with a single species. He thus ignores the fact that by doing so he has united 

 forms which were founded on fully adult bones, and yet some of them were 

 only about half or two-thirds the size of the others. I personally think that 

 too many species have been made, and at least 7 of Captain Hutton's forms 

 must be sunk. On the other hand some have been described since 1895 

 and 1900, and I have been obliged to name others rather against my 

 will, so that in spite of uniting so many species of others I find I am 

 obliged to acknowledge more species than anyone else. I have divided these 

 into genera according to Professor Parker's classification, only adding 

 Palaeocasuarius of Forbes, with 3 species, and Megalapteryx, with 5, which 

 brings my number up to 38 species, divided into 7 genera. My reasons for 

 not uniting these into 7 species and 7 genera, as those of the "lumping 

 school " do, are twofold, — first, the bones of the Ratitae are much more solid 

 than those of other birds, and are not given to so much individual variation ; 

 and, secondly, in the face of the great number of species of Paradise 

 Birds and Cassowaries found on New Guinea, the contention that there 

 could not be so many species of Moa on so small an area is not easily 

 maintained. Moreover, we have strong support in the present fauna and 

 flora for the presumption that, when the Moas first came into existence and 

 differentiated into species, New Zealand was a much larger area, stretching 

 at least from the Macquarie Islands in the south to the Kermadecs in the 

 north, and from Lord Howe's Island on the west to the Chatham Islands 

 on the east. So that, like the giant tortoises on the Galapagos Islands, 



