34 
wing, from flexure, 4; bill along the ridge 1'7. Mr. Gould's speeimen has the same length of wing, but the bill 
measures 2'45 inches. Of the eight examples in the British Museum, one corresponds very nearly with the last 
mentioned, in four of them the bill measures 2*25, in two others it barely exceeds 2 inches, and in the remaining 
one it is only 1'8 inch; while in none of them does the wing vary, in any material degree, from the standard 
length of 4 inches. The slight individual difFerences of plumage are only of the kind we are accustomed to look 
for in members of this group. 
In 1875 Baron von A. Hiigel, in a letter to ‘ The Ibis,’ giving an account of his collecting-tour 
in New Zealand, said : — “ In Invercargill I was very fortunate in procuring good things. I got two 
specimens of a Qallinago there, which I thought interesting enough to send to you. ... As you will 
see, the one is from the Snares (south of Stewart Isle) ; and after comparing it with specimens from 
the Chatham Isles in the Otago Museum, I have not the slightest doubt that the two are identical. 
But the Snipe from the Auckland Isles seems to me different in size and colouring It struck 
me at the time that after all there might be differences between Gallinago aucMandica and Q.pusilla, 
which I believe are at present considered synonymous.” A year later Mr. Sharpe, in the Supplement 
to the ‘ Birds ’ of the ‘ Erebus and Terror ’ (as quoted above), treated the species as distinct. It was 
not, however, till I received this year from Canon Tristram two specimens of Snipes, which he had 
obtained from New Zealand and the Auckland Islands respectively, that I felt disposed to rehabilitate 
my Gallinago fusilla. Before doing so, I took the precaution of submitting the two skins to 
Professor Newton, who returned them to me with the following note “ The smaller one has, to my 
eyes, many if not all the characteristics of a young bird ; but hereby I do not mean to declare it to be 
the j oung of the laiger one. There is to be borne in mind the possibility of a species retaining the 
plumage of immaturity in its adult condition — in other words, of being permanently immature in this 
lespect. But, on the whole, I am strongly inclined to think that this smaller specimen is the skin 
of a young bird, though I cannot persuade myself that it is the young of Gallinago aucUandica, 
supposing the larger specimen to be rightly named. I demur to what you say as to the bill of the 
smaller specimen not being that of a young bird, for I well remember being very much struck with 
the large size of the bill of a nearly full-grovvn J ack-Snipe (of which T made a careful drawing, that 
I now possess, in Lapland many years ago), and I have seen the same amount of development in the 
young of our Common Snipe. Thus you will see that my impression is that the two specimens 
belong to different species, but that one is young and the other adult. I much wish I could speak 
more positively on the matter, but in any case it would be useful to figure the smaller specimen.” 
Mr. Sharpe, to whom I also submitted these specimens, pronounced unhesitatingly in favour of 
two species. On communicating the above results to Canon Tristram, he wrote to me 
I am much interested in your report of my South-Pacific Snipes. I am now sending you the 
j oung of Gallinago aiicklandica for examination. You will see that it confirms our view of the 
distinctness of the two species, for it would expand into G. auclclandica but never into G. gyusilla. 
Of the latter I have never seen the young.” 
Ml. Cheeseman writes, under date June 2, 1884: — “I have a specimen of Gallinago pusilla 
in the Auckland Museum, obtained by Mr. T. B. Hill in the Raglan district many years ago ; but I 
have never met with the bird myself.” 
It appears to me that Gallinago pusilla is now fairly entitled to take rank as a good and valid 
species, and I have accordingly figured, on the same Plate as Limosa novee zealaiidiw. Canon Tristram’s 
specimen, although apparently in younger condition than my type, which has been sent back to 
New Zealand. It is only right, however, to mention that Mr. Seebohm, to whom Canon Tristram had 
previously shown his specimens, expressed (and I believe still holds to) the belief that both birds are 
referable to the same species, the differences presented by the smaller one being due to immaturity. 
