116 
Mr. W. L. Buller on the 
My description of G. albofrontata was taken from the type 
specimen in the British Museum. 
Xenicus longipes. 
Captain Hutton is in error in stating that the specimens of 
Xenicus longipes in my collection (Colonial Museum) were 
wrongly determined. There is no such species as Xenicus 
stokesii . The explanation of the strikingly incorrect figure 
of X. longipes in the f Voyage of the Erebus and Terror’ will 
be found at page 116 of my f Birds of New Zealand/ I may 
mention that in company with the late Mr. G. B. Gray, I ex¬ 
amined Forster’s original (unfinished) drawing of this bird, 
in which the bill is depicted as straight and the eye-circlet 
almost wanting. Mr. Gray told me that his artist was re¬ 
sponsible for the alterations in the published figure (which 
represents a bird with an upturned bill like Acanthisitta) , and 
that his own description of the species (Voy. Ereb. & Ter. 
p. 4) was taken from the latter! After we had thus sifted 
the matter and compared specimens, Mr. Gray readily ad¬ 
mitted that his Xenicus stokesii (Ibis, 1862, p. 219) would 
not stand. 
Miro trayersi. 
Captain Hutton misquotes me in a very unfair manner. 
I never said that he had made any suggestion to me about 
naming the bird. The specimen was kindly sent to me by 
Hr. Hector without any restriction; and I might have antici¬ 
pated Captain Hutton by describing it under any other name. 
Knowing how the case stood, however, I stated (p. 123) that 
I had “much pleasure in adopting Captain Hutton’s proposal” 
to name the species in honour of the discoverer. At that time 
no description of the bird had been published; nor did I re¬ 
ceive the proof of Captain Hutton’s paper in the f The Ibis ’ 
till after my account of Miro traversi had been printed off. 
Part ii. of my work, containing this, was published in June; 
f The Ibis ’ a month later. 
Myiomoira macrocephala. 
Hr. Finsch agrees with me in opinion that Myiomoira dief - 
fenbachii is not separable from M. macrocephala. 
