APTERYX AUSTRALIS, Shaw. 
Kiwi Kiwi. 
Aptery» Australis, Shaw, Nat. Misc., vol. xxiv. Pls. 1057, 1058 ; and Gen. Zool vol. xii, p. 71.—Less, ‘Traité 
d’Orn, p. 12.—Cuy. Régne Anim. t. i. p. 498, note.—Yarrell, in Trans. Zool. Soe. vol. i, p. 71. 
PL 10,—Owen, Art, Aves, Cycl. of Anat. and Phys., vol. i. 1886, p. 269,¥ and in Trans. Zool. Soe 
vol. 11. p. 257. 
Apterye, Ternm, Man, d’Orn, 2nd, Edit. Anal, p, exiv. 
Apteraus Pengttin, Lath. Geu. Mist. vol. x p. 394. 
Dromiceius Nove-Zelandie, Less, Man. t. ii. p. 210. 
Kiwi- Knit, Aborigines of New Zealand. 
For our first knowledge of this bird we are indebted to the late Dr. Shaw, to whom the specimen figured by 
him in the ** Naturalists’ Miscellany” was presented by Captain Barclay, of the ship Providence, who brought it 
from New Zealand about 1812. Dr, Shaw’s figure was accompanied by a detailed drawing of the bill, foot, 
and rudimentary wing, of the natural size. After Dr. Shaw’s death, his at that time unique specimen passed 
into the possession of the Earl of Derby, then Lord Stanley, Lis Lordship’s being a private collection, and 
no Other specimen having been seen either on the continent or in England, the existence of the species was 
doubted by naturalists generally for upwards of twenty years. M. Temminck, it is true, placed it with 
hesitation in an order to which he gave the title of /nerfes, comprehending the present bird and the Dodo : 
but other naturalists were inclined to deny its existence altogether. The history of the bird remained in this 
state until June 1843, when my friend Mr. Yarrell published in the “Transactions of the Zoological Society” 
an interesting paper, detailing all that had been previously made known respecting it, and fully established 
it among aceredited species: this paper was accompanied by a figure from the original specimen still in the 
possession of the Earl of Derby; I haye smee had the good fortune to become acquainted with five 
additional specimens, and to obtain some further information respecting the history of the species. Two 
of these, from which my figures are taken, were presented to the Zoological Society by the New Zealand 
Company: the Society also possesses a third, but imperfect specimen, which was presented by Alexander 
MacLeay, Esq., of Sydney; and two others have been recently added to the collection of the Earl of Derby, 
one of which having been liberally presented to me by his Lordship, my thanks are especially due for this 
interesting addition to my collections. 
A mature consideration of the form and structure of this most remarkable bird, leads me to assign it with 
little hesitation to the family of Struthionide ; and my reasons for doing so will, I think, be obvious to 
every one who will examine and compare the species with the members of that group. The essential 
characters in which it differs consist in the elongated form of the bill, in the shortness of the tarsi, and in the 
possession Of a sharp spur, termimating a posterior rudimentary toe. Regarding the Ostrich as the specivs 
to which it is least nearly related, we find in the Emu and Rhea a much nearer approach, not only in the 
more lengthened form of the bill of the latter, but also in the situation of the nostrils, which in the Rhea are 
placed nearer the tip than in any other species of the group, the Apteryx excepted ; in fact, when we compare 
the bills of these two birds, it is very evident that both are formed on one plan, that of the Apteryx beiny an 
elongated representative of the Rhea, with the nostrils placed at the extreme tip: in both these birds there 
is the same peculiar elevated horny cere or fold. The tarsi are much shorter, and the nails of the toes 
much more curved than im the Rhea; but the scaly covering of these parts in both birds is precisely the 
same ; and it may be further observed that the number of toes increase as we pass on from the Ostrich, 
there being only two m that bird, three in the Rhea, Emu, ete., and three with a radiment of a fourth io the 
Apteryx. The wing of the Apterys, although scarcely more than rudimentary, agrees with that of the Rhea 
in having a strongly hooked claw at its extremity; while in the structure of its feather it approaches nearest 
to the Cassowary; but unlike what obtains in that bird, the feathers are entirely destitute of the accessory 
plume, in which latter respect it again agrees with the Rhea, The members of this group, although few in 
number, are remarkable for their structural peculiarities, each being modified for its own peculiar habits 
* 1 was not aware of the existence of Professor Owen’s paper at the time 1 published my first account of this bind, otherwise it would not bayy 
remained unnoticed, 
