28 
differences, I find that U. melcmopterus, at all stages of its growth, has a white or greyish tail, whereas 
H. albicolhs in the adult state has a black one, and this alone would form a good distinguishing 
character. Again, H. albicolUs has the primaries and secondaries tipped with white, whereas in 
II. melanopterus they are entirely black. 
Mr. Hamilton, in his account of the birds of the Petane district (Hawke’s Bay), says * that “ the 
White-necked Stilt occurs not unfrequently.” 
As the subject, however, seems to need further investigation, it may be well to reprint here a 
portion of my paper referred to above : — 
“ Probably tbe most puzzling group of birds we have in Ifew Zealand is that of the Stilt-Plovers, and my object in submitting 
the following notes is to make another step towards a better acquaintance with and elucidation of the species. 
“ In the first place, it is somewhat remarkable that New Zealand should possess certainly two, if not three, species of a genus 
of birds so peculiar that (if we except a small one said to exist on the west coast of Madagascar) each of the great divisions of 
the globe can only boast of one. Even Australia, teeming as it is with wading birds, is the home of only one species of Stilt 
(//. leueoceplialns), which is also common to New Zealand, Ternate, Celebes, and Timor. The existence of a second species in this 
country {H. novae zealandim) was first recorded by Mr. Gould in 1841. Since that date several other names have been added, 
and (owing to our imperfect knowledge of the seasonal and transitional states of plumage) the nomenclature has got into a state 
of confusion. As in aU such cases, the only escape from this is a careful study of the species at aU ages and at all seasons of the 
year, noting the changes of plumage that occur, and tracing their progress from youth to maturity. 
“ The present jiaper is intended to be a contribution of this sort, but as I have not collected or dissected any of the specimens 
referred to, it would be manifestly unfair to hold me responsible for the data. Particulars of season, sex, &c., I have been com- 
pelled to take on trust. 
‘ For the purposes of this examination I have had before me forty-three specimens, in different conditions of plumage, 
belonging to the Canterbury Museum. 
“ Ihere is no difficulty whatever in separating llimantopm lemocepliulus, which is distinguished from H. novee zealandice in 
the somewhat similar seasonal plumage by its purer and well-defined colours, its smaller bill, and appreciably shorter toes and 
claws. Of course specimens vary, and in a series like the present we meet with large examples of H. leucocephalus and small 
examples of H. novee zealandice, but the general rule holds good throughout. The young are readily distinguished by the enlarge- 
ment towards the distal end of the tarsus (a provision for the future lengthening of this bone), which diminishes with the 
growth of the bird. There are two fledglings in the collection, and as the description of the ‘ young ’ given in my ‘ Birds of New 
Zealand ’ (1st ed. p. 203) is taken from a somewhat older bird, I append the following notes : — 
“ II. leucocephalus, juv. — Crown of the head, back, and upper surface of the wings brownish black, tinged more or less with 
brown, and many of the feathers being narrowly tipped with grejdsh white ; hind neck greyish white, mottled with black in its 
lower portion ; forehead, fore neck, and all the tinder surface, as well as the rump, white ; the whole of the quills black, the 
inferior primaries and the secondaries narrowly tipped with white ; tail-feathers black, edged with fulvous, and white at the 
base. (Obtained at Rakaia, Nov. 1872. Weight, 6 oz.) 
“ Of Himantopas novee zealandice I have given in the ‘ Birds of New Zealand’ (1st ed. pp. 205-206) descriptions of the summer, 
winter, and adolescent states of plumage, and under the head of ‘ Remarks’ I have referred to the numerous transitional states 
which have led to so much confusion in regard to this species. The description there given, however, of the adult in winter, I 
wish now to qualify by stating that the uniform dark plumage on the abdomen is by no means a constant character. 
“ First of aU, as a result of my present examination, I feel bound to dismiss Himantoptis spicatus, Potts, as having no claim 
whatever to the rank of a species. The typo specimen is now before me, and the distribution of colours (as may be seen on 
reference to the published description) t indicates a transitional condition. The extra length of leg (as compared with II. novee 
zeedandice) appears to be rather in the tibia than in the tarsus. Mr. Potts makes the black neck and breast his distinguishing 
feature ; but there is another bird in the collection (a male) in w'hioh the tarsus is 4 inches and the tibia 2 inches — altogether a 
bird of smaller proportions — in w'hioh the distribution of colours is the same, although there is a less extent of black on the 
breast. 
“ I have already described (1. e. p. 204) the young of this species from two young specimens in the Canterbury Museum, the 
parentage of which was placed beyond all doubt by Mr. Fuller, who secured at the same time the two old birds in black summer 
plumage. I maj^ add that these latter are still in the collection j the male is perfectly black, and the female slightly pied. 
“A more matured example of the young bearing the following label, ‘ Shot in Bottle Lake, Jan. 28, 1872 ; juv. female • 
parent bird black,’ qiresents a general resemblance to the young of Ilimantoiyus leucooephcdus, but on a close comparison the 
following differences arc observable : — The crown is lighter, being of an almost uniform ash-grey ; there is more greyish w'hite 
* Trans. N.-Z. Inst. vol. xviii. p. 127. 
t Op. cit. vol. V. p. 198. 
