Order GRALLJJ.] 
[Fam. EALLID^. 
EALLUS PHILIPPENSIS. 
(BANDED RAIL.) 
Ballus fUlippensis, Linn. Syst. Nat. i. p. 263 (1766). 
Bdle raye des Philippines, ButF. PI. Enl. 774 (1784). 
Philippine Bail, Lath. Gen. Syn. iii. pt. 1, p. 231 (1785). 
Ballus assimilis. Gray, App. Dieff. Trav. ii., App. p. 197 (1843). 
Ballus pectoralis, Gould, B. of Austr. vi. pi. 76 (1848, nec Less.). 
Ballus forsteri, Hartl. Arch. f. Naturg. 1852, p. 136. 
Hypotcenidia philippensis, Bonap. C. E. xliii. p. 599 (1856). 
Ballus hypotcenidia, Verr. Eev. et Mag. de Zool. xii. p. 437 (1860). 
Ballina philippensis, Wall. P. Z. S. 1863, p. 36. 
Ballus {Buldbeornis) philippensis. Martens, J. f. O. 1866, p. 28. 
Ballus pictus, Potts, Trans. N.-Z. Inst. iv. p. 202 (1871). 
1 Ballus macquariensis, Hutton, Ibis, 1879, p. 454 *. 
Native names, 
Patatai, Popotai, Mohotatai, Moho-patatai, Moho-pereru, and Puohotata ; “ Land-Eail ” of the 
colonists. 
Ad. supra brunneus, interscapulio saturatiore, plumis omnibus late olivaceo-fulvo lavatis et marginatis, plerisque 
albo maculatis aut iuterrupte trausfasciatis, uropygio tantum unicolore, supracaudalibus mintis albo notatis : 
Note on Rallus macquariensis, Hutton, Ibis, 1879, p. 454 ( 5 , obtained at Macquarie Island). — Is this form specifically 
distinct, or is it a mere variety of the -widely-spread R. philippensis ? Compared -with some Ne-\V'Zealand examples of the 
latter it might perhaps pass for a distinct species ; but on being judged along with a series exhibiting much variation in the plumage, 
its claims to separate recognition are seriously damaged. The nuchal colour is indicated by a wash of rufous among the plumage, 
and I observe, on moving the feathers, that this colour is more pronounced on one side than on the other, indicating, it would 
seem, a transitional state, or at any rate an indeterminate condition of plumage. The rufous colouring shades into brown on 
the har which crosses the eyes and flUs the lores, exhibiting only a tinge of rufous on the ear-coverts ; but the shape of that bar, 
spreading as it does belo-w the eye, is the same as we find it in Australian examples of Rallus philippemis. The grey super- 
ciliary stripe is certainly indistinct, hut it is nevertheless present, forming a mere line immediately over the eyes, but spreading 
out beyond. The banded markings on the sides and flanks are far less pronounced than in the bird of which I have given a 
figure ; but I have in my possession younger specimens with even less of this character than the Macquarie Island bird. At 
first glance the upper surface of the body would seem to be entirely without spots, hut on moving the plumage it wiU be seen 
that there are very distinct round white spots on some of the feathers composing the mantle, while on the primary-coverts they 
are of a tawny colour, and blend with the surrounding plumage. The quills are barred with chestnut, exactly as in R. phiUp- 
pensis, and the plumage on the crown of the head, throat, fore neck, and abdomen is the same ; there are shght indications of 
white spots on the lower sides of the neck, and there is a wash of rufous chestnut forming a hroad hand across the breast. 
There are no structural characters hy which to differentiate the species. Slight differences in the plumage are observable, but 
these are less than are to be found on a comparison of the New-Zealand bird with that inhabiting Fiji, and certainly not more 
than those existin,, between our bird and that from the Pelew group. Judging by the indistinct character of the markings on 
the sides and flanks, and the general softness of the plumage, I should conclude that Prof. Hutton’s type is a somewhat immature 
bird , and, for the reasons I have stated, I doubt very much its being more than a local variety of Rallus philippensis. 
