THE BIRDS OE AUSTRALIA. 
Bonaparte. As showing the peculiarities present in his treatment, might 
be cited the fact that he included the “ Types ” of P. rossii in his list of 
specimens of P. vittatus, while the name is synonymised with Prion desolatus 
Gmelin. 
A Plate was given including the biUs of eight specimens which were to 
show the variation present due to age and sex, but of course no account being 
taken of locahties and through lack of material, imperfect knowledge of 
growth-variation being inevitable, misdeterminations are noticeable. 
In the second edition of his Birds of New Zealand, BuUer probably through 
Salvin’ s advice admitted four forms since commonly accepted as distinct. 
It seems however certain, that the names used cannot be safely identified 
at this time. In his first edition Buller’s P. turtur was the bird since known as 
P. hrevirostris or P. ariel, and his P. banksii was probably the bird since known as 
P. desolatus. Whether his P. ariel of the second edition was a juvenile specimen 
of the species commonly known under that name or not, can only be guessed. 
In his Supple^nent, Vol. I., he included five species, P. vittatus Gmelin, 
P. hanhsi, p. 18 (Hutton, Auckland Islands), P. desolatus (Stephens Island, 
Hutton, Antipodes Island ; Chatham Island), P. hrevirostris (Otago), and 
P. ariel. The figure of P. desolatus given on p. 123 is undoubtedly that of 
P. turtur, while the figure on p. 125 purporting to represent P. hrevirostris is 
also of P. turtur, the figure on p. 125 of P. desolatus being probably drawn from 
a young specimen of P. turtur ; as the difference noted on p. 126 for his P. ariel 
shows that young birds were again being used. I conclude that Buller’s 
P. desolatus, P. hrevirostris, and P. ariel are all referable to the same species, 
P. turtur Kuhl. 
The Monograph followed in its entirety the treatment of this group by 
Salvin in the Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., Vol. XXV. 
Having carefully worked through the material available, I find that I 
must endorse Coues’s treatment and most of his synonymy. Under the 
species my reasons will be fully explained. As regards genera, I prefer to 
accept Coues’s separation of P. vittatus as the sole representative of the genus 
Prion, but must go further than that author, as the species Coues grouped 
under Pseudoprion are divisible into two genera. 
202 
