262 
I OBTAINED my first specimens of this somewhat rare Duck (in 1866) on the Oroua stream, near its 
junction with the Manawatu, in the Province of Wellington. I observed that on being disturbed from 
the marsh where they were apparently feeding they rose high in the air, and came down suddenly into 
the creek with a rapid, oblique, and rather awkward flight. On the water they kept near to each 
other, and I killed both at one shot. They proved, on dissection, to be male and female ; I found the 
skin very tender, and the flesh extremely delicate, with fat of a bright yellow colour. 
I afterwards saw a pair on the wing, passing over one of the freshwater lagoons of the Upper 
Manawatu, the white alar bar being very conspicuous ; and, subsequently, I obtained a fine specimen 
in the flesh from Napier. It is comparatively plentiful in some of the sulphur-springs at Ohinemutu, 
and was so formerly at Eotomahana, where, as Captain Mair informs me, he once killed as many as 
eleven at a single shot on the water. It sometimes swims in pairs, but usually associates in small 
flocks of a dozen or more. It is easily distinguished from all the other species by the conspicuous 
white bar on the wings. Its form is remarkably slender and gi aceful, the contour of the body being 
almost as elongate as that of a Gannet. The stomach of one I dissected contained numerous particles 
of gravel and comminuted vegetable matter. 
Although of rare occurrence in most parts of New Zealand, the species has a wide geographical 
distribution, examples having been recorded from Timor, Flores, Celebes, Northern Australia, South 
Australia, and New Caledonia. It bears a close resemblance to Anas punctata of Australia ; but it 
is appreciably smaller, and the male does not exhibit the bright summer plumage of that species. 
Mr. Gould, in his account of Anas punctata, observes : — “ There appear to be two very distinct races 
of this bii’d, one of which is much larger than the other ; so great, in fact, is the dilference in this 
respect in specimens from various parts of the country, that the idea presents itself of their being 
really distinct species. The smaller race inhabits Tasmania, the larger the western and southern 
portions of Australia.” These remarks, no doubt, refer to the present species, inasmuch as I was 
able to identify a specimen received by the late Sir J. von Haast from Australia with the true 
A. gihierifrons. This circumstance was noticed by me in a communication to the ‘ Ibis (1869, 
p. 42, note) ; and I have since had an opportunity of further verifying the fact by the examination 
of several specimens in the Sydney Museum. 
An excellent plate of this Duck appeared in the ‘Proceedings of the Zoological Society’ (1882, 
pp. 453, 454, pi. xxxiii.), in illustration of a paper by Dr. Sclater, in which he reported that a pair 
of live ones from Australia, in the Society’s Gardens at Pegent’s Park (previously supposed to be 
A. castanea), had nested in what is termed the “ Waders’ Pond,” towards the end of March, and had 
brought out four nice young birds *. In this figure, however, the bill and feet are represented as 
being black instead of yellowish brown. 
* Dr. Sclater continues : — “ There is no longer any doubt that -(re have here to deal with a species which, however much it 
may resemble the female of Anas castanea, is quite distinct, and of which the sexes, as may be proved by the examination of our 
breeding birds, are very nearly alike, the female being merely slightly smaller in size and duller in plumage. It is, in fact, the 
species described in the ‘ Ibis’ for 1869, by Dr. Brdler, from H’ow-Zealaud specimens, as Anas gracilis, but subsequently identified 
by Dr. Finsch (‘ Ibis,’ I8G9, p. 380) with Anas gihierifrons, S. Muller. As regards the synonyms of this species, after the 
positive statement of Dr. Finsch and Prof. Schlegel, I think we can hardly accept Prof. Hutton’s unsupported opinion that ‘ Anas 
gracilis is distinct from A. gihierifrons ’ Having been in error myself as to my first identification of these Ducks, I fear 
I have also led Prof. Newton into an error upon the same subject. In January 1871 I furnished Prof. Newton with what I 
believed to be specimens (in the flesh) of a male and female Aims castanea that had recently died in the Society’s Gardens. Prof. 
Newton, trusting to Mr. Baker’s determination that the ‘presumed female was really of that sox, read a paper upon these birds 
before this Society in November of that year, in which he pointed out that the presumed female possessed the extraordinary 
pcculiaritv of having a lulla ossea, hitherto only known to occur in the male sox of the Anatidie, and proposed in consequence 
the new generic term Virago for Anas castanea. But Prof. Newton having been kind enough to send me up the skins of this 
presumed pair of birds for examination, I think I may say that there is little doubt that Mr. Baker must have made an error in 
his determination of the sex of tho supposed female, and that that bird is in all probability a male of Anas gihierifrons.” 
I happened to be jircsent at the meeting of November 1871, and ventured to express a strong opinion at the time that the 
specimen exhibited as $ Anas castanea was in reality d A. gihierifrons, a view which has proved to be correct. 
