EASTERN WEDGE-TAILED PETREL. 
Crowfoot, and in the same journal (1910, XXXV., p. 784, 1911), wrote: “ I hope 
at some future date to procure more information as to the extent to which 
Puffinus griseus breeds on Norfolk Island. At present, the only data are 
Sir Walter BuUer’s expression of opinion that Dr. Crowfoot’s P. sphenurus 
[chlororhynchus] is P. griseus, and some eggs procured for me by a collector in 
December, which are certainly not those of P. chlororhynchus, but agree with 
the dimensions of those of P. griseus P 
In the Trans. New Zeal. Inst., Vol. XXVIII., p. 352, there is the correction 
by Crowfoot of BuUer’s guess that the Norfolk Island P. sphenurus was P. griseus, 
which correction is also printed in BuUer’s Suppl. Birds New Zeal., Vol. I., p. 105, 
and I have now before me one of Crowfoot’s Norfolk Island birds with Crowfoot’s 
label of P. sphenurus. This is undoubtedly P. chlororhynchus, but the solitary 
bird does not exactly agree with the Lord Howe and Barrier Reef birds ; but 
nothing further can be said owing to the bad condition of the specimen.* The 
eggs mentioned by Hull would probably belong to the form of P. carneipes 
breeding on Norfolk Island. 
How difficult it is to correlate the existing records is made obvious by the 
action of North, who, from a study of the specimens, has made the following 
determinations {Proc. Linn. Soc. N.8.W. 1911, Ahst. Proc. No. 291, Ap. 26th, p. v.) : 
“ Mr. North sent for exhibition a skin of Puffinus carneipes Gould, from Lord 
Howe Island, and of P. chlororhynchus Lesson, from South Solitary Island, on 
the northern coast of New South Wales. He concluded the former was the 
common breeding species on Lord Howe Island, and was the bird recorded by 
Dr. E. P. Ramsay, as Puffinus hrevicaudus Brandt (=P. tenuirostris Temm.), 
which latter he decided did not breed on Lord Howe Island, or in its vicinity. 
“ The latter (P. chlororhynchus Lesson) was one of the specimens recorded 
by Dr. Ramsay {Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 1879, Vol. III., p. 406), as P. carneipes.’^ 
If such misidentifications were made in this group by Dr. E. P. Ramsay, the 
most careful and painstaking ornithologist Australia has yet produced, not 
much credence can be given to many of the existing records. 
In view of this, the notes and references are here given for what they are 
worth. 
In the Monograph of the Petrels, p. 89, is written : “ The habits of 
P. chlororhynchus are similar to those of other members of the genus Puffinus, 
but I am unable to decide, in every case, to what species many of the Vecent 
notes published in Australian journals refer, as the ranges of P. chlororhynchus 
and P. tenuirostris are, in many parts of Australia, coterminous.” From the 
range of specimens I have examined I cannot endorse this statement, as I 
have not seen specimens of these two species from the same locality. The 
* Moreover, this is the identical bird described as a typical Puffinus chlororhynchus in the Monogr. Petrels, p. 89. 
87 
