RHIPIDORNIS GULIELMI TERTII (Meyer). 
Kins* of Holland’s Bird of Paradise. 
Dlphyllodes gulielmi III., Musscheubr. in litt. — Meyer, Zool. Gart, Jan. 1875, p. 29. — Rosenb. t. c. p. 30. — Meyer, 
Nature, Jan. 14, 1875, p. 208.— id. P. Z. S. 1875, p. 31.— id. Mitth. Zool. Mus. Dresd. i. p. 3, pi. i. 
(1.875). — Beccari, Ann. Mus. Gen. vii. p. 710 (1875).— Sclater, Ibis, 1876, p. 249.— Gould, Birds New 
Guin. i. pi. 21 (1876). — Sclater, Ibis, 1877, p. 493. — D’Hamonv. Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 1886, p. 510. 
Rhipidornis guglielmi tertii, Salvad. Ann. Mus. Gen. ix. p. 192 (1876).— Meyer, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1886, p. 297.— Salvad. 
Agg. Orn. Papuasia, pt. ii. p. 162 (1890). 
Rhipidornis respublica, Sharpe (nec Bp.), Cat. B. Brit. Mus. xii. p. 173 (1877). — Eudes-Deslongch. Ann. Mus. d Hist. 
Nat. Caen, i. p. 30 (1880). 
Rhipidornis gulielmi III, Salvad. Orn. Pap. ii. p. 645 (1881).— Scl. P. Z. S. 1883, p. 252.— Meyer, P. Z. S. 1886, 
p. 297. 
Paradisea guglielmi III., Musschenbr. Dagboek, pp. 190, 223 (1883). — Rosenb. Mitth. orn. Ver. Wien, 188o, p. 31. 
The present species was first recognized as distinct by Mr. van Mnsschenbroek, a well-known officer of the 
Dutch East Indian Service, whose name has often been mentioned in connection with the natural history 
of the Malayan Archipelago. He appears to have been well aware that the species, when be first received 
it, was quite new to science, and be even sent a description of it to Baron von Rosenberg, naming it 
Diphyllodes gulielmi tertii, after the King of Holland. 
At the same time Van Mnsschenbroek forwarded the type specimens, with the name D. gulielmi 
tertii attached to them, to Dr. Meyer, who was then, as now, deeply attached to the study of Papuan 
Ornithology, to the history of which he has himself furnished most important contributions. Dr. Meyer 
duly published a description of the species, using Van Musschenbroek’s specific title, in the ‘ Zoologischer 
Garten ’ for January 1875, and on the succeeding page appears Van Musschenbroek’s original description, 
contributed by bis friend Von Rosenberg. The first description of the species, however, having been 
furnished by Dr. Meyer, must bear his name as author. 
The type specimens remained for some time in the Dresden Museum, but their ultimate fate is plaintively 
narrated by Dr. Meyer, as follows : — “ As it is of importance to know where type specimens are 
preserved, I add the history of those of Rhipidornis gulielmi tertii described by myself. Having kept them 
in the Dresden Museum since the year 1875, I one day in the year 1877 received a telegram from Van 
Musschenbroek, who had returned home in 1876, telling me that he wished to show the birds to King 
William III. I sent the specimens to him, and never saw them again. They remained in the hands of the 
King, and we never succeeded in recovering these types for science, though supported by the late Prof. 
Sehlegel, of Leyden ; but after Van Musschenbroek’s death, in the year 1883, the King of the Netherlands 
delivered the specimens to the Museum of the Zoological Society (‘ Natura Artis Magistra ’) of Amsterdam, 
where they probably will remain.” 
Very few specimens of this rare Bird of Paradise have as yet reached Europe. Besides the two original 
types, we know of one other, which was disposed of by Mr. Bouvier, of Paris, to the Warsaw Museum. Before 
being sent to Poland, this individual was figured by the late Mr. John Gould in his ‘Birds of New Guinea.’ 
A fourth specimen was afterwards received by Mr. Whitely, of Woolwich, and was exhibited at a Meeting of 
the Zoological Society of London by Dr. Sclater on the 1st of May, 1883. This specimen was acquired by 
the British Museum. I have myself been shown two more specimens, both of which appear to have passed 
into the collection of the Hon. Walter Rothschild, who has also another perfect male. 
This makes seven specimens known to me at present ; of these all but one were fiat skins of native 
manufacture, but about two years ago a perfect specimen was offered to the British Museum along with a 
complete example of Epimachus ellioti and other rare Papuan species. The price asked, however, was 
prohibitory, and I do not know what afterwards became of the specimen. 
The home of the species was originally supposed to be the island of Waigiou, but the exact habitat will 
probably be found to be New Guinea. Dr. Beccari writes : — “ It seems most improbable to me that 
Diphyllodes gulielmi tertii should be found in Waigiou, because the type specimen (which I have seen) was, 
if I do not mistake, prepared in the manner of the ‘ alfuros ’ of New Guinea, and was acquired at Salawatti 
