654 
THE WILSON JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY • Vol. 124. No. 4. December 2012 
box 40, folder 16) reveals that Brigham “tried hard 
to purchase those birds (Mills’ collection] eleven 
years ago |1865] when 1 saw them in Mr. Mills’ 
collection in Hilo, Hawaii, but his price was beyond 
my means." <W, T. Brigham horn Boston 13 Nov 
1876 to S. F. Baird at the Smithsonian). This is the 
first certain indication that the Mills collection was in 
existence as early as 1865. Thus, it now seems much 
more likely that Brigham negotiated some sort of 
purchase or exchange with Mills or one of his 
collectors that resulted in his obtaining the small 
collection that included the two 'Harvard specimens 
of Ciridops. It is therefore possible that four of the 
live historically known specimens of Ciridops anna 
have the same general source—James Mills from the 
area above Hilo. 
The last specimen o (Ciridops anna was obtained 
°n 2 February 1892 near the headwaters of the 
Awini River in the Kohala Mountains of northwest¬ 
ern Hawaii by native Hawaiian hunters for Roths¬ 
child’s collector. Henry Palmer. This was preserved 
whole in spirits of wine, from which Rothschild, in 
what must be viewed with hindsight as a irreparable 
loss ot anatomical information, had it prepared as a 
study skin sometime before 1900. at which time he 
wrote that “the beautiful red has faded away” 
(Rothschild 1900: 183). Fortunately, the skinned 
titink, along with the hyoid apparatus, was retained 
inspirits, both this and the skin (BMNH 
1939.12.9.58) having gone to the British Museum 
(Natural History) with the Rothschild bequest in 
1939. The details of the circumstances surrounding 
the capture of this last specimen of Ciridops art- 
recorded in die journals of Palmer (Rothschild 1893: 
Diary 7) and his assistant George C. Munro (1892). 
Capture of Ciridops.-The >ive existing spec¬ 
imens of Ciridops anna are all in remarkably good 
condition with plumage that shows little or no 
signs ot wear, although what this may mean in 
terms ot timing of molt cycle is uncertain because, 
except for the last specimen obtained by Palmer it 
is not known at what time of year any of them 
were collected. None of them shows any evidence 
of shot damage and it is likely that all may have 
been trapped alive by birdcatchers using tradi¬ 
tional means such as birdlime, snares, and other 
means (Emerson 1894). The one obtained for 
Pa mer and preserved in spirits must have been 
kdled soon after capture Tor the stomach contents 
to have remained undigested and in good 
condition. The label indicates it was ‘shot by a 
native and Munro (1892) reports that the natives 
shot it while feeding” but I have not noticed any 
shot damage in either the skin or the remaining 
body in fluid. 
SYSTEMATIC HISTORY 
Dole (1878) reflected the opinion, long voiced 
subsequently, that the bill of the Ula-ai-hawane 
was finch-like by placing it in the genus Fringilla. 
probably intending that usage in a more or less 
Lijinaean sense rather than suggesting any close 
relationship with the few species now restricted to 
the genus Fringilla. Subsequent to Dole's (1878.) 
description, which was reprinted by Sclater (1880), 
there was no further mention of the species, apart 
from a query in a footnote by Sharpe (1888), who 
wondered what Fringilla anna might be. Newton 
(1892:469) placed it in the new genus Ciridops and 
considered that “it probably belongs to the fauna 
which I have above called "Columbian’ (for want 
of a better name): but I cannot suppose it to have 
been so early a settler as the Drepanididae, since it 
has changed so little.” In this he may have meant 
that it had changed so little from other finch-like 
Hawaiian passerines, which at that time were not 
recognized as being part of the drepanidine 
radiation. In the final arrangement of pages of 
Wilson and Evans (1890-1899), Ciridops was 
placed at the beginning of the drepanidines. 
followed by the species of the red-and-black group. 
Gadow (1899: 243) considered there was nothing 
to be gained by excluding Ciridops from the 
Drepanididae, citing hearsay reports of its frayed or 
tubular tongue. That information came from the 
specimen received in spirits by Rothschild (1900: 
181) who remarked that the “tongue seems to 
piove that this genus belongs to the Drepanidae and 
not to the Fringillidae, the only two families which 
would have any chance of claiming it.” Perkins 
< 1901, 1903) was the First to advocate that all the 
Hawaiian birds then included in the Drepanididae. 
plus the finch-billed species previously considered 
fringilline, constituted a monophyletic radiation 
regardless of the family in which they were placed. 
Perkins divided the expanded Drepanididae into 
two "divisions’ and included Ciridops in his 
Division I (the "red and black' group later often 
called a subfamily Drepanidinae). Its position he 
regarded as “quite certain” (Perkins 1901: 585), 
specifically mentioning similarities shared between 
Ciridops and Vestiaria (scarlet plumage, black 
wings and tail, while in wings) and also Palme ria 
(black.sh-gray | lanceolate] throat feathers). Bryan 
(1901) placed Ciridops in the Drepanididae at the 
end ol the red group after Himatione and preceding 
