Order IMPENNES.] 
[Fam. SPHENISCID^. 
EUDYPTES VITTATUS. 
(THICK-BILLED PENGUIN.) 
1 Aptenodytes papua, Vieill, (nee Forst. nec Gmel.), Gal. Ois. ii. p. 246 (nec diagn.), tab. 299 
(1834). 
Eudyptes vittata, Finsch, Ibis, 1875, p. 112. 
Ad. STiprk obscure cyanescenti-niger, ala saturatibs brunnescente : subtbs omniuo albus : facie laterali et prse- 
pectore brunnescentibus : supercilio distincto lato occiput cingente albido : rostro rufesceuti-bruuneo ; 
pedibus rufescentibus, membranis interdigitalibus nigricantibus. 
Adult. Crown, sides of the head, face, chin, hind neck, and the rest of the upper surface dark brown, inclining 
more or less to blue ; from the base of the upper mandible, in a line with the nostrils, a streak of yellowish 
white passes oyer the eyes, and widening in its course encircles the crown ; but there is no elongation of the 
feathers or any appearance of a crest j the flippers are dull blackish brown on their upper surface, and white 
underneath, with similar dark markings to those which distinguish Eudyptes pachyrhynchus. Bill reddish 
brown; legs and feet pale brown, the elaws darker. Total length 26 inches; length of flipper 6; tail 1'5 ; 
bill, along the ridge 2, along the edge of lower mandible 2‘2 ; tarsus 1 ; middle toe and claw 3. 
Note. Of this species Dr. Finsch writes (Ibis, 1873, pp. 113, 114) : — “ Captain Hutton suggests that this may 
be Latham’s ‘ Red-footed Penguin ’ (Gen. Syn. iii. p. 572) , but without reason, as a careful examination of 
the synonymy shows that Latham’s description is based on ‘ the Penguin’ of Edwards (t. 49 et t. 94, head 
on right hand), as is also ‘Aptenodytes catarractes’ of Forster (Comm. Soc. Reg. Getting, iii. 1781, p. 145) 
and Gmelin (Linn. Syst. Nat. ii. p. 558), and ‘Phaeton demersus’ of Linnd (S. N. p. 219), and Brisson’s 
‘ Catarractes ’ (Ornith. iv. p. 102). All these descriptions are simply derived from Edwards’s figure, which 
represents a bird the existence of which, in my opinion, will ever remain doubtful, being very likely based 
on a made-up bird. I do not understand how G. R. Gray (Hand-1, of B. iii. p. 98) and Schlegel (Mus. P.-B. 
Urinat. p. 8) could identify Edwards’s inaccurate figure with E. chrysocoma, Forst. and Gmelin (Pinguinaria 
cristata, Shaw), even supposing it to be the young bird, without tuft — as Edwards’s figure, besides other 
inaecuracies, shows a bird with Mergus-\\^& legs, the tarsus being longer than the middle toe. E. vittatus, 
if indeed a true Eudyptes, is easily distinguished from all other members of the Penguin group by its broad 
white superciliary streak, which runs from the base of bill to the back of head, but which does not 
consist of elongated feathers. A close examination of all the existing representatives of Penguins leads me 
to the belief that very probably to this new species belongs the figure of a Penguin which Vieillot erroneously 
published under the name of ‘Aptenodytes papua’ {1. c.), but which is not the well-known species of 
Sonnerat, Forster, and Gmelin, which Mr. Sclater, from the unfitness of the name, proposed to call Pygo- 
scelis wagleri (P.Z. S. 1861, p. 47). To judge from Vieillot’s figure and the French description (not the 
Latin diagnosis, which relates to the tme papua), the bird very much resembles our E. vittatus, especially in 
having the white superciliary streak, which runs to the oeciput.” 
The type specimen of this Penguin is in the Otago Museum ; but there is a much finer example in 
the Canterbury Museum, in which the colours are brighter, the coronal band more conspicuous, and 
the bill appreciably thicker. 
I take it that this is a male bird, and that the one described above (which has been courteously 
forwarded to England by Professor Parker, for my examination) is a female in old and faded 
breeding-plumage. 
2q2 
