The first example of Apteryx oi which there is any record was obtained in New Zealand about the 
year 1813, by Captain Barclay, of the ship ‘ Providence,’ and afterwards deposited in the collection of 
the late Lord Derby. This bird was first described, under the above name, by Dr. Shaw (Nat. Misc. 
1. c.), and afterwards, at greater length, by Mr. Yarrell, in the ‘Transactions of the Zoological Society’ 
(vol. i. p. 71, pi. 10). On the 10th December, 1850, a series of specimens was exhibited before the 
Zoological Society of London, when Mr. Bartlett pointed out characters which, as he contended, 
established the existence of two species, hitherto confounded under the specific name of Apteryx 
australis. Mr. Bartlett stated, at this meeting, that an Apteryx belonging to the late Dr. Mantell 
having been placed in his hands by that gentleman, he had remarked its dissimilarity to ordinary 
examples, and that, after a careful comparison with a number of other specimens, he had come to the 
conclusion that it was a new species. On comparing Dr. Mantell’s bird, however, with the original speci- 
men in the Earl of Derby’s collection, he had found that they were identical. He accordingly referred 
his supposed new species to Apteryx australis, and distinguished the more common bird as Apteryx 
mantelli, for which he proposed the following characters : — “ its smaller size, its darker and more 
rufous colour, its longer tarsus, which is scutellated in front, its shorter toes and claws,, which are 
horn-coloured, its smaller wings, which have much stronger and thicker quills, and also its having 
long straggling hairs on the face ” (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1850, p. 276). 
In a paper read before the Wellington Philos oirhical Society on the 12th November, 1870*, I 
pointed out that the characters by which Mr. Bartlett had distinguished the species would not stand. 
I showed that the sexes differed from each other both in size and in the tone of their plumage, that 
the arrangement of the tarsal scutella differed according to age and other circumstances, that the 
peculiarity in the cubital quills was not a specific character, the “ soft slender quills ” indicating only 
immaturity, and that the length of the “straggling hairs on the face” varied in almost every indivi- 
dual. I stated further that an inspection of the drawings illustrative of the supposed specific 
distinctions (published by the Zoological Society) had only tended to confirm me in the opinion 
expressed above. 
After that paper was Avritten 1 had an opportunity of examining several fine series of South-Island 
Apteryges, and of comparing them with examples from the North Island; and I was then convinced 
that there are in reality two species of brown Afteryx, readily distinguishable from each other by a 
very remarkable difference in the structure of their plumage. In the South-Island Kiwi the feathers 
of the upper parts are soft and yielding when stroked against the grain, whereas in the North-Island 
bird, owing to a peculiarity in the structure of the shaft, they have stiffened points, and are harsh and 
prickly to the touch. This character (apart from a slight difference in the colour of the plumage) is 
constant in all the specimens I have examined ; and I have no hesitation in giving it a specific value. 
In this course I am supported by the unanimous opinion of several of the best ornithologists in 
England, to whom I have submitted specimens for examination. 
I take this opportunity of saying that the credit of this discovery belonged to the late Sir Julius 
von Haast, who, on receiving from me a North-Island bird for comparison with the specimens in the 
Canterbury Muserun, detected this structural difference in the plumage, and informed me of it long 
before I had an opportunity of verifying the fact for myself. 
Dr. Otto Finsch, however, has arrived at an opposite conclusion, although he seems to have 
practically conceded the point by admitting the North-Island Kiwi to the rank of a “ variety ” (i. e. 
Apteryx australis, var. mantelli) f. 
* Trans. N.-Z. Inst. vol. iii. pp. 37-56. 
t Since the publication of my first edition, I have examined numerous examples of both forms, and I have seen no reason 
to change or modify the views exjwessed above as to the specific value of the North-Island Kiwi, as compared with Apteryx 
australis of the South Island. It is desirable, however, to have the arguments on both sides stated fully, and I have therefore 
2 T 2 
