WHITE GALLINULE. 
of the ‘ Endeavour ’ to England.” If this be accepted as correct, the bird could 
not have been brought from Norfolk or Lord Howe Islands. The former island 
was not discovered until 1774, the latter not until 1788. It should also be 
noted that the habitat of this bird was given as New Zealand. 
Forbes, comparing it with P. melanotus^ wrote : “ One point is very obvious, 
that the legs and toes are very different ; they are unlike those of any specimen 
of P. melanonotus in the large series with which I have compared it ” ; and, “ it 
is difficult to bring oneself to believe that they are albinos of P. melanonotus, 
from which our bird differs so conspicuously in the form of its legs and toes.” 
Then follow the measurements of the bird, with details of various specimens 
of P. melanotus. Howley’s figure did not show any conspicuous difference in the 
feet and toes. Before making any further comparisons I was compelled to work 
up Notornis. I found that Owen in the Trans. Zool. Soc., III., p. 366, PI. lvi.. 
Figs. 7 — 13 (1848), had proposed this generic name for a part fossil skull of a bird 
from the North Island of New Zealand. Later, a bird somewhat agreeing with 
the hypothetical possessor of the fossil skull was captured in the South Island 
of Zealand. This bird was at once referred both specifically and generically 
to the fossil, and was beautifully figured as Notornis mantelli by Gould in the 
Suppl. to the Birds of Australia, PI. 76. However, in 1883, Meyer in the 
Ahhild Vogel Skelet Lief, IV. and V., p. 28, PI. xxxiv — xxxvii., gave beautiful 
photographs of the skeleton of the recent bird, and from his comparison of the 
recent skeleton with the fossil remains, decided that the former was specifically 
distinct, and named it Notornis liochstetteri. He pointed out that the femur, 
tibia, and tarso -metatarsus were all shorter in the recent bird than in Notornis. 
I have carefully compared the figures given by Meyer with those of Owen, and 
consider the reference of the recent bird to such a fragmentary fossil to be 
improper. As all the comparisons to be made later will be with the recent bird, 
and will be of characters not available in the fossil and very problematically 
identical, I herewith propose the new generic name of Mantellornis for Notornis 
hochstetteri Meyer. By this means I can accurately give the features possessed 
by that bird and make my observations intelligible. Certainly the skulls of 
Notornis mantelli and Mantellornis hochstetteri differ considerably, and tl;e logical 
conclusion is that the possessors would have differed as constantly. I shall show 
the generic characters of the genus Mantellornis as given by the only species later. 
The leg of Mantellornis is of quite a different nature to that of Porphyrio. It 
therefore seemed simple to decide absolutely the generic location of the Liverpool 
bird, and settle at once in favour of Forbes or Rowley. 
Forbes was apparently not acquainted with Mantellornis, or rather did 
not have a specimen of that genus in front of him when his comparisons were 
made. But the figure of Notornis Mantelli in the Suppl. to Gould’s Birds of 
249 
