Hieracidea novæ-zealandiæ, Gml.
The discussion as to the alleged distinctness of Hieracidea novæ-zealandiæ and H. brunnea has been carried a step further since the date of Dr. Finsch's paper. In the introduction to my "Birds of New Zealand" (p. 15) I have adduced further evideuce in support of the view adopted in the body of the work, and it appears to me that what is now wanted to clear up the question is an extensive series of fresh specimens from different localities, carefully sexed and measured, together with further observations on their habits.
Tt may be mentioned that Mr. Sharpe, who contributes to the argument in a capital letter to "The Ibis" (1873, pp. 327—330), has pointed out that the name of Falco brunneus, of Gould, has been pre-occupied by Bechstein, who thus called the Common Kestrel of Europe, and that cousequontly our small bird, if allowed to be distinct from H. novæ-zealandiæ, mnst bear another title. Mr. Sharpe considers that this should be Hieracidea australis (Homb. et Jacq.), but it seems to me that this is only a synonym of the older specics, and that the right name to fall back upon is Falco ferox, of Peale (U.S. Expl. Exped., 1848, p. 67).
Circus gouldi, Bonap.
I observe that Dr. Finsch adheres to the title Circus assimilis. This is certainly untenable, for, as first pointed ont by Mr. Gurney ("Ibis," 1870, p. 536), the true Circus assimilis of Jardine and Selby (Ill. Orn., II., p. 51) has proved to be the young of Circus jardinii, figured in Gould's "Birds of Australia" (pl. 27), aud the name of C. gouldi, proposed by Bonaparte (Consp. Gen. Av., I., p. 34), therefore stands.
Dr. Finsch says he "should like to see an old specimen, in order to prove whether this species ever assuines the dress of the old Australian bird." He will find every condition of plumage fully described at pages 11 and 12 of my "Birds of New Zealand," a perusal of which cannot fail, I think, to convines him of the identity of our bird with that inhabiting Australia and Tasmania.
Halcyon vagans, Less.
Dr. Finsch says that "having examined a large series of this Kingfisher, he considers it a good species." But it was this author himself who originally disputed its validity. He referred our bird to Halcyon sanctus, and was followed by Captain Hutton (Cat. Birds of N.Z., p. 3). I have always contended for its being a distinct species, and Mr. R. B. Sharpe, in his beautiful monograph on the family (published in 1870), felt no hesitation in according it that rank.
I have great respect for Dr. Finsch's judgment as a critical ornithologist, but I fear he is sometimes in danger (from the very paucity of materials at his command) of generalizing on insufficient data. In the present case, for
