120 
It is with some hesitation that I accord specific rank to this bird, for although my collection contains 
some beautifully marked specimens, they intergrade to such an extent that it is extremely difficult to 
draw any distinct line between this species and 0. australis. 
I have thought it best, however, to give a figure and description of my most characteristic 
specimen, and to leave ornithologists to choose for themselves whether they will recognize this form 
as distinct, or as being only an extreme variety of the highly variable South-Island Woodhen. 
My own revision of the group was thus stated in a paper which I read before the Wellington 
Philosophical Society in January 1878 * : — 
“ Although as a group the limits of the genus Oeydromus are sufficiently well defined, considerable difficulty has been 
experienced in determining the species. Every naturalist who has studied the subject appears to have arrived at some different 
conclusion as to the number of constant forms ; and where the variances as to size and plumage are so well maintained it is 
difficult to avoid drawing specific distinctions. If, however, it can be shown that all these extreme forms graduate in a series, or, 
in other words, run into one another, it becomes impossible to find any fixed aberrant characters. Without professing to be able 
yet to place the matter beyond aU dispute, I venture to tliink that the series of specimens which I have the honour to exhibit 
this evening affords pretty strong evidence that several of the so-called species in the South Island must be united under the 
name of Oeydromus australis. 
“In my ‘Birds of New Zealand ’ (1st ed.), I admitted only three well-ascertained species as inhabiting New Zealand— 
namely, 0, sarli, 0. australis^ and 0. fuscus. I mentioned in the introduction to that work that, although Er. Einsch recognized 
a fourth (0. troglodytes, Gmel.), I was unable to draw any specific line. Nevertheless, I pointed out very fully, in my account 
of the South-Island Woodhen, the great variation both as to size and markings which that species exhibits, especially among 
birds from different localities. 
“ Captain Hutton, in an article on the New-Zealand Woodhens, read before this Society t in September, 1873, agreed with 
Dr. Einsch in admitting 0. troglodytes, and added two more species of his own under the names of 0. heetori and O.jinscM. He 
further described a ‘ variety or immature ’ example of this last-named species, which he suggests may ‘ possibly be identical with 
GalliraUus hracliypterus, Lafr.’ 
“ Dr. Einsch, in a paper written the year following, professes to identify Oeydromus troglodytes with the 0. australis of 
my text, page 170, but not the plate ; of 0. heetori he remarks, ‘ I consider this a good species after having compared a typical 
specimen; ’ and of O.Jimchi he says that, having examined the type, he considers it a good species, although not without some 
suspicion that it may prove to be a variety of 0. fuscus. He confuses Oeydromus australis, Sparrm., with the well-known 
0. earli ; and with respect to the latter in Hutton’s list, ho makes the following singular statement : — ‘ Dr. Duller, in his great 
work, unfortunately does not mention the typical specimen of 0. earli, Gray, and not having compared it myself, I am unable to 
make out whether the true earli is, indeed, the bright cinnamon-red bird as Captain Hutton and I believe, or whether it is the 
same as 0. australis, figured under the name of earli by Dr. Duller’ §. Captain Hutton, on the other hand, writes me ; — ‘ I am 
sure that you are right about the identification of 0. earli, and I don’t understand how Einsch thinks otherwise ’ [| . 
“Baron A. von Hiigel, who has lately been on a scientific tour through the colonies, writes thus in ‘The Ibis ’If : — ‘Of 
New-Zealand things I have got a very fair collection — some 300 specimens already. Oeydromus I have, of course, gone in for, 
and have a lot of notes about it. I don’t believe in more than three good species — 0. australis (with endless varieties), 0. fuscus, 
and 0. earli. The last two are difficult to procure, although I shall doubtless get a series of the latter in the North Island : 
but of 0. australis one could get a shipload in a very short time. I have got a splendid series, showing every age from embryo 
to adult, and varieties to perfection.’ It will be soon, therefore, that the Baron, who comes to the subject with a totally unpre- 
judiced mind, adopts my published division of the species in a very positive manner. 
“ If, on further investigation, it should be found necessary to add a fourth species, this must be Oeydromus hrachypterus, 
Lafresnaye ; for Dr. Einsch, who appears to have examined the type specimen, affirms distinctly ** that it is the same as Hutton’s 
0. heetori-, and Captain Hutton himself admits that this is ‘ very probable’ tt. This is of course the bird referred to at page 171 
of my ‘ Birds of New Zealand ’ (1st ed.), in the following passage; — ‘ Dr. Hector informs me that on all the high mountains 
of the Otago province he mot with a “ cream-coloured variety,” very readily distinguishable from the common bird. 
Mr. Buchanan confirms this observation, and states that on the Black Peak, at an elevation of 6000 feet, he found this light 
variety very abundant, but none of the other birds ; the former, indeed, were so numerous as to prevent his getting any sleep.’ 
It seems unfortunate that, in obedience to the law of priority in nomenclature, we must sink a name, very fittingly bestowed, 
in favour of hracliypterus, which expresses no distinguishing specific character, being equally appropriate to all the forms of 
Oeydromus.’’ 
* Trans. N.-Z. Inst. vol. x. pp. 213-216. 
§ Ihid. vii. p. 231- 
»* Trans. N.-Z. Inst. viii. p. 202. 
t Op. cit. vi. p. 110. 
II Id. ihid. ix. p. 330. 
tt Log. cit. ix. p. 330. 
+ Ihid. vii. pp. 226-236. 
K ‘ The Ibis,’ 1875, p. 393. 
