160 Bird-Song : and New Zealand Song Birds 
note sounding; rather like a sharply unwinding fishing-reel 
The bird sat only a few feet above me, singing one or other of 
the pairs of notes, or the whole phrase, for some considerable 
time: each pair took about a second. The whole body of the bird 
appeared to be employed in producing the notes, contracting all 
along its sides on the emission of each one, the neck being 
stretched out and the beak slightly open. He turned from side to 
side, singing one note to the left, one to the front, and one to 
the right, indiscriminately, turning through a semicircle. He 
raised his body with each note, as though to eject them with a 
jerk in the case of the first four, and to pour out the sound of 
the vibrating bell. I saw and heard the bird again on the day 
following, when the notes and vocalization varied as in (25) and 
(26). The consonantal sounds were more subdued, and again 
the k and p were not breathed. The whole sounded more 
musical than on the preceding day, and the turr was entirely 
bell-like. So rich and beautiful was their quality, that the 
singing of these few notes produced a more delightful effect 
within me than any bird-notes heard before or since. The manner 
of singing of the male and female bell-birds differs as remarkably 
as the quality of their song; but the disparity in the number of 
birds of the two sexes seen and heard is altogether inexplicable. 
From later observation I conclude that the male and female are 
apart during part of the year, and that, at times at any rate, the 
male is shy and silent;—I have rarely known the female to be so. 
Of the twenty-six Maori names recorded (WJ, p. 199) the 
ones most commonly used are makomako and korimako. 
The former has been corrupted to mockiemock, or mockie— 
the name which I was accustomed to hear as a boy, before ever 
I saw a patch of Maori bush or was acquainted with any Maori 
bird but the fantail. Those who did not know that the name 
mockie was a corruption of the Maori, would find support in it 
to the statement that the bird is a mocker. Evidence is ex¬ 
tremely conflicting; I have heard no notes that lead me to 
suppose that the bell-bird is a mimic, and many well acquainted 
with the bush and the birds agree with me; yet there are as 
many who hold the contrary opinion, the first and foremost 
