A History of the Birds of New Zealand.
Harpa Novæ Zealandiæ — (Quail-Hawk.)
Harpa Novæ Zealandiæ
New-Zealand Falcon, Lath. Gen. Syn. i. p. 57 (1781).
Falco novæ seelandiæ, Gm. Syst. Nat. i. p. 268 (1788, ex Lath.).
Falco australis, Hombr. et Jacq. Ann. Sci. Nat. 1841, p. 312.
Hypotriorchis novæ zealandiæ, Gray, Gen. of B. i. p. 20 (1844).
Falco harpe, Forst. Descr. Anim. p. 68 (1844).
Hieracidea novæ zealandiæ, Kaup, Isis, 1847, p. 80.
Harpe novæ-zealandiæ, Bonap. Comptes Rendus, xli. p. 652 (1855).
Ieracidea novæ zealandiæ, Gray, Hand-1. of B. i. p. 22 (1869).
Hieracidea novæ zealandiæ, Buller, Birds of New Zealand (1st ed.), p. 1 (1873).
Harpa novæ zealandiæ, Sharpe, Cat. Brit. Mus. Birds, vol. i. p. 372 (1874).
Karearea, Kaiaia, Kaeaea, Kakarapiti, Karewarewa, and Tawaka.
♂ suprà nigricanti-brunneus, pileo unicolore saturatiore: dorso fasciis irregularibus fulvescentibus transnotato: remigibus nigricanti-brunneis, pogonio interno albo transfasciato: secundariis extùs fasciis angustis albidis notatis: caudâ nigricanti-brunneâ, albido angustè et interruptè transfasciatâ: facie laterali nigricante, supercilio indistincto et genis imis rufescentibus: gutture fulvescenti-albo, scapis plumarum nigro indicatis: corpore reliquo subtùs lætùs fulvescente, pectoris plumis saturatè brunneo medialiter striatis et fulvo plus minusve distinctè ocellatis: hypochondriis imis cum cruribus et subcaudalibus lætisimè castaneis: subalaribus fulvescentibus, castaneo tinctis, his et axillaribus fulvescenti-albo ocellatis: rostro cyanescenti-nigro, ad basin mandibulæ corneo: cerâ pallidè flavâ: pedibus flavis: iride sordidè flavâ.
♀ mari similis, sed paullò major.
♂ juv. suprà fuliginoso-brunneus, pileo magis cinerascente: caudâ minùs distinctè transfasciatâ: gutture fulvescenti-albo, angustè brunneo striato: subtùs fuliginoso-brunneus, pectore paullò nigricante et hypochondriis cruribusque vix castaneo tinctis; pectore medio albido obscurè maculato: abdomine imo crissoque fulvescentibus: hypochondriis distinctè fulvo ocellatis: cerâ et plagâ oculari cyanescenti-albis: pedibus plumbeis: ungulis nigricantibus.
Pull. lanugine plumbeâ indutus.
Adult male. Crown of the head and nape glossy black; upper surface generally brownish black, barred on the scapulars and tail-coverts with rufous, and narrowly on the wing-coverts with rufous grey; a line over each eye, and sides of the neck, varied with rufous; facial streak and ear-coverts black; throat fulvous white, with narrow black shaft-lines, broadening out towards the breast; fore part of the neck and breast fulvous varied with rufous, and having the centre of each feather brown; sides of the body dark brown varied with rufous, and with large rounded spots of fulvous white; abdomen and vent rich fulvous; under tail-coverts and tibial plumes rufous brown, with narrow black shaft-lines; quills and secondaries obscurely marked on their outer webs with grey; tail with eight narrow interrupted bars of greyish white, and slightly tipped with rufous; under surface of quills and tail-feathers dusky, the former largely toothed and the latter page 214 barred with white. Bill bluish black; base of lower mandible horn-colour; cere pale yellow; legs brighter yellow; claws black; irides brownish yellow, becoming purer yellow with advancing maturity. Extreme length 19 inches; extent of wings 31; wing, from flexure, 11·25; tail 8·25; culmen 1·2; tarsus 2·5; middle toe and claw 2·75; hind toe and claw 1·75.
Adult female. The plumage is similar to that of the male, excepting, perhaps, that the spotted markings on the sides are more distinct; but there is a slight difference in the size. Extreme length 19·5; wing, from flexure, 11·5; tail 8·5; tarsus 2·75.
Young. Crown of the head and upper parts generally brownish black, glossed with grey in certain lights; line over each eye reddish fulvous; throat fulvous white, with a central line of brown on each feather; sides of the neck, breast, lining of wings, and underparts generally dark brown varied with fulvous; sides marked with rounded spots of fulvous white, very obscure in some specimens; tibial plumes reddish brown; lower part of abdomen, vent, and inner side of thighs fulvous; under surface of quills and tail-feathers dusky, with numerous transverse bars of white. Cere and bare space around the eyes bluish white; irides black; legs dark grey, with black claws.
Nestling. Covered with plumbeous-grey down.
Obs. The above measurements were taken from a pair of birds of this species formerly in the Christchurch Acclimatization Gardens, and now preserved in the Canterbury Museum, the sex in both cases having been carefully ascertained by dissection. The figure of the adult female is from a fine specimen obtained in the South Island, and now in my collection. Examples vary in the details of their colouring. In some the light spots on the sides are far more conspicuous and the tibial plumes are of a brighter rufous than in others. As a rule, the white bars on the tail-feathers, although interrupted in the middle, are conterminous on each side of the shaft. In a specimen, however, obtained by Mr. Travers in the South Island the bars are alternate on each web, as was also the case with another, shown to me at Ohinitahi; but this character is quite exceptional.
The synonymy given above will serve as a tolerably complete guide to the scientific and literary history of the present species; but much confusion has arisen at various periods with regard to the nomenclature employed, and a few words in further explanation of the subject appear to be necessary.
In Mr. G. R. Gray’s ‘List of the Birds of New Zealand,’ published as an Appendix to Dieffenbach’s ‘Travels’ (1843), that naturalist recognizes only two species of Accipitres, which he calls respectively Falco harpe, Forst., and Falco brunneus, Gould, thereby intending, of course, to indicate the existence of two distinct species of true Falcons in New Zealand; but in this list there is no mention whatever of the Harrier (Circus gouldi), a common and well-known bird in our country. In adding the native names an unfortunate mistake occurred; for Falco harpe was stated to be the bird known to the inhabitants as “Kahu” and “Kahu-papango,” whereas these are in reality the native appellations for the Harrier, which, as already stated, had been omitted from the list. This will, no doubt, account for the mention of Gould’s Harrier, in the earlier writings of Layard, Haast, and Taylor, under the erroneous title of Falco harpe. Mr. Gray himself afterwards, in his ‘Birds of New Zealand’ (Voy. Ereb. and Terror), partially rectified this error by introducing the Circus in its proper place; but the misapplication of the native names was continued. In that work Mr. Gray substituted the prior title of Falco novæ zealandiæ, Gmel., for F. harpé, Forst., with F. australis (Homb. et Jacq.) correctly added as a synonym; he likewise reduced Gould’s F. brunneus to the rank of a synonym; but in a subsequent list (Ibis, 1862, p. 214) he recognized it again as a distinct species, and equivalent to F. ferox of Peale (U. S. Explor. Exped. 1848), referring both forms to Kaup’s genus Hieracidea. Unfortunately Mr. Gould’s description of H. brunnea was founded on an page 215 immature bird, in a condition of plumage exactly corresponding with the young of H. novæ zealandiæ. This circumstance, together with the great difference in size between the male and female, led me, among others, to the conclusion that the two birds were referable to one and the same species*. Dr. Otto Finsch (Journal für Ornithologie, 1867, p. 317) expressed his belief that H. brunnea was the female of H. novæ zealandiæ—a decision based (as he has since informed me) on Forster’s account of the bird; but in a subsequent paper (op. cit. 1870), referring to my observations on the subject, he adopts the view of its being the young of that species, quoting, at the same time, Dr. Haast’s opinion to the contrary. In Captain Hutton’s ‘Catalogue’† only one species is admitted, the author remarking that it is very variable in size, and that “a large male can be distinguished from a small female by its more slender legs, which are 0·6 of an inch in circumference in the male, and 0·88 of an inch in the female.” On the other hand, several excellent local observers have always held that they could distinguish a larger and a smaller species, the former differing in some of its habits from the common Bush-Hawk, and frequenting the open country in preference to the woods. Mr. Gurney also called attention to the subject in a letter to ‘The Ibis’ (1870, p. 535), in which he gave the dimensions of various examples that had come under his notice. Of these, the small specimen of H. brunnea, in the Norwich Museum, marked ♀ (measuring 14·5 inches in total length, wing 9·25), is, no doubt, as Mr. Gurney suggests, incorrectly labelled; for I have never met with so small an example of that sex; and it must be confessed that conclusions based on a mere examination of skins, in the absence of a positive determination of the sex, are very unsatisfactory.
It will be seen, on reference to the measurements I shall give in treating of the smaller species, that the sexes differ very much in size, the female, as is always the case with members of this family, being the larger bird. The fact that a male of the present species (of which the sex was carefully ascertained by Dr. Haast) was actually larger than the female of H. brunnea appeared to me sufficient of itself to warrant a specific separation. Having, however, brought with me to England good examples of both forms for illustration in my former edition, I compared them with the fine series of specimens in the British Museum (about twenty in number) and with Forster’s original drawings, and came to the conclusion that there were in reality two distinct species, closely resembling each other in plumage in both the young and adult states, but differing appreciably in size. In this examination I was kindly assisted by Mr. J. H. Gurney, an ornithologist who, as is well known, has made Birds of Prey his special study; and as he entirely concurred in the conclusion arrived at, I felt that I could publish it with some degree of confidence.
Mr. Sharpe afterwards pointed out (Ibis, 1873, p. 327) that the name of Falco brunneus of Gould had been preoccupied by Bechstein, who thus called the common Kestrel of Europe, and that consequently our small bird, if allowed to be distinct from H. novæ zealandiæ, must bear another title. He considers that this should be Hieracidea australis (Homb. & Jacq.); but it seems to me that this is only a synonym of the older species and that the right name to fall back upon for the former is Falco ferox of Peale. In his official catalogue of the Accipitres in the British Museum, under the generic name of Harpa, he not only gives H. australis the precedence, but commits (as I venture to think) the further error of making it a “subspecies,” or constant variety, of H. novæ zealandiæ. The two birds are either specifically distinct or they belong to one and the same species.
Professor Hutton contributed to ‘The Ibis’ for October 1879 a table of measurements for the purpose of showing that there existed only one species; but in my reply to that paper (Ibis, 1881, p. 453) I pointed out that his argument was quite inconclusive, inasmuch as “his ♂ specimen B gives a wing-measurement only ·25 of an inch longer than that assigned by me to the female of the smaller species.”
* Vide Trans. N.-Z. Instit. vol. i. p. 106 (1868).
Since that time the question has received much attention at the hands of local ornithologists; and although there may be still some difference of opinion as to the propriety of keeping the birds distinct, nearly all the subsequent evidence is in support of my contention.
Apart from the manifest difference in size already mentioned, the Quail-Hawk may be distinguished from the smaller species by the colour of the irides, which become yellow in the fully adult bird, whereas in Harpa ferox they are dark brown.
This larger form is seldom if ever met with in the North Island, where the other is comparatively plentiful. The only specimen ever obtained by me there was shot in the Kaipara district, more than five-and-twenty years ago, and this is preserved in my old type-collection in the Colonial Museum. It is met with in suitable localities all over the South Island.
Its food consists of birds, rats, mice, lizards, and the larger kinds of insects. It often takes its prey on the wing, swooping down on its terrified quarry with the rapidity of an arrow. It never feeds on carrion or offal.
I have been informed by a credible eye-witness that on one occasion a Quail-Hawk swooped down upon a man who was carrying a dead Pigeon, and, striking the bird forcibly out of his hands, retired to its station in a puriri tree to wait the course of events. It unfortunately fell a victim to its intrepidity, as it was instantly shot.
The late Sir J. von Haast, who always believed in the existence of two species, stated that their habits differ in the manner of taking their prey; and his collector, the late Mr. Fuller, assured me that he had invariably found the large birds paired together in the plains, and the small ones in the bush.
Mr. Reischek, who has been collecting for eight years in every part of the country, declares that all the examples obtained by him in the North Island were undoubtedly referable to the smaller form. He has collected both species in the South Island, where he invariably found the Quail-Hawk on the plains and lower ranges of hills, and the Bush-Hawk near the summits of the wooded ranges. Even on the Hen Island (in the Hauraki Gulf) he found the latter species frequenting only the tops of the hills. Having studied the birds in their native haunts and shot and compared scores of specimens in every condition of plumage, he unhesitatingly affirms that the two forms are specifically distinct.
Mr. Smith, whose full notes on the subject were communicated by me to the Wellington Philosophical Society*, writes that having procured upwards of thirty specimens and worked out the subject for himself he is “decidedly in favour of the existence of two species.” He states that he had nestlings of both, and that those of H. ferox never attained to the size of H. novæ zealandiæ, although he kept them four months longer. In disposition, too, they differed, being fiercer and more untamable than the larger form.
Mr. Potts, who also recognizes two species, makes the following pertinent remarks:—
“If the cabinet ornithologist will not permit the fauna to possess two species, Falco ferox= F. brunnea must be the young state of Falco novæ zealandiæ. In this case we must try to believe that the greatest boldness and audacity in attacking, the greatest activity and swiftness of wing in pursuing, is exhibited by the Quail-Hawk before it has reached the adult state; neither may we have regard to the difference of size which specimens of either sex very often present.
* Trans. N.-Z. Instit. vol. xvi. pp. 318–322.
“The Quail-Hawk exhibits great perseverance in pursuit of its prey, and almost unequalled audacity. I have known it pursue and strike down a large Spanish hen in a stockyard, not relinquishing its hold till killed with the blow of a stick. I have also known it pursue its prey into the inner room of a small cottage. When Quail-shooting, years ago, I have been on different occasions attended by this dauntless fowler, and have shot an individual in the act of pouncing on the flying Quail. I have seen a female of this species bear off a Tui trussed in her talons, and carry it some distance without a rest, the male bird apparently keeping watch and ward, soaring within easy distance. I remember also seeing a Quail escape the rapid pursuit of one of these Hawks by dropping like a stone, at the very instant that I expected to see it trussed up in the talons of its pursuer, so close was the chase before the Quail adopted its last resource for escape.”
On the breeding-habits of this species, the same observer has communicated the following particulars:—“At present it is in the ‘back country’ only that we can hope to find its breeding-place, which is usually in a ledge of rock commanding a prospect over some extent of country. Such an outlook gives an advantage of no little value, of which the Falcon is not slow to avail itself, should such a bird as a Tui or Pigeon appear in sight. Several of the breeding-places which we have had opportunities of examining have presented, in a remarkable degree, very similar conditions as regards situation. Amongst bold rocks, on the mountain-side, somewhat sheltered by a projecting or overhanging mass, appears to be its favourite site for rearing its young. The eggs very closely resemble those of Falco peregrinus of Europe in colour, size, and shape, are usually three in number, and are deposited on any decayed vegetable matter that wind or rain may have collected on the rocky ledge; for the efforts of this bird in the way of nest-building are of the feeblest description.” He gives October, November, and December as the breeding-months; and states that above the upper gorge of the Ashburton or Haketere River he discovered a nesting-place on the bare soil, sheltered by a large isolated rock. It contained two young Hawks covered with grey down; and the old birds were very bold in defence of their offspring.
* “We once had the gratiflcation of witnessing a most interosting trial of powers between a Sparrow-Hawk and the Brown Parrot (Nestor meridionalis). It was near the shore of that most romantic sheet of water Lake Mapourika. Standing just within the trees that fringe its margin, we heard the alarm-cry of the Kaka, and swiftly there came in sight, crossing a corner of the open space above the placid waters, two birds in active contest, the Parrot labouring heavily, wheeling and clumsily gliding aside, as its fierce pursuer drove at it with its talons. Then the rapid shifting of colours—now one saw the olive-brown of the Kaka’s back, then the blood-red markings of its soft under-plumage, almost hidden the next instant with the dark brown, blackish pinions of the Falcon. Borne downwards with the momentum of a lost stroke, the Hawk occupied some time in regaining ‘the air,’ whilst the terror-stricken Kaka hastened at its topmost speed towards the friendly cover of the wood. Once more its persevering enemy darted towards it with almost incredible swiftness, but the persecuted bird seemed to tumble amongst the trees that ensured its safety, quite regardless of appearances, so that it reached an asylum.”—Out in the Open.
The fine series of eggs of this species in the Canterbury Museum exhibit considerable individual variation. Two specimens, taken from the same nest, are more ovoido-conical than ordinary examples, having an appreciably smaller end. One of these is of a rich reddish brown towards the larger end, with darker blotches, and towards the other end pale brown, profusely sprinkled and mottled with dark reddish brown. The other is somewhat similar, but more blotched with dark brown in its median circumference, and with the ground-tint towards the smaller end reduced to a whitish cream-colour. In two other examples (also from one nest) the whole surface is reddish brown, stained, mottled, and blotched with darker brown; but one of them has the brown of a richer tint, and the mottled character more distinct.
Among the more recent additions to this collection there is a singular specimen of the egg of this species. It is very ovoido-elliptical in form, measuring 2·25 inches by 1·4, of a warm sepiabrown, prettily freckled and spotted, more thickly so in the middle, and confluent in a large patch at the larger end, with reddish brown varied with darker brown.
A very handsome specimen in my son’s collection (obtained at Oamaru) is broadly ovoido-conical, measuring 1·9 inch in length by 1·8 in breadth; it is of a rich cream-colour, thickly spotted, speckled, and freckled over the entire surface with dull reddish and chocolate-brown, these markings becoming entirely confluent at the larger end, which is entirely reddish brown smudged and daubed all over with chocolate-brown.
On the subject of the systematic position of this form, Dr. Finsch published the following remarks in the ‘Journal für Ornithologie’ for March 1872, which I have translated from the German:—“Falco novæ zealandiæ must be ranged among the Tree-Falcons, and follows next in order to Falco femoralis, having, like the latter, a long tail, which is only half covered by the wings…… Third primary longest; second shorter and somewhat longer than fourth; first and fifth equal. Tarsi covered in front with ten hexagonal scutes in double rows. Middle toe very long, being with the claw nearly as long as the leg; lateral toes equal, the points of their claws scarcely reaching to the base of the middle-toe claw. A subgeneric distinction appears justifiable.”
Mr. Sharpe, who contributed to ‘The Ibis’ (1873, p. 327) some critical notes on the subject, says:—“The New-Zealand Hieracideœ are rather abnormal members of the Falconine series; for it is rare to find a bird which, when young, is uniform above, and becomes barred when it is old; nor do they here closely coincide with their Australian congeners, excepting as regards their uniformly cloudy breasts when young.” He afterwards (Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. vol. i.) adopted Bonaparte’s genus for our bird, merely altering the termination, for classical accuracy, and making it Harpa.
In a communication to the Wellington Philosophical Society, in September 1878*, I took exception to the proposed generic separation of our bird from that inhabiting Australia; but I have lately gone into the question with Mr. Sharpe himself and have come to the conclusion that the distinction he makes is a reasonable one. I have accordingly adopted Harpa in lieu of Hieracidea, although my Plate of the species, which had already been worked off, bears the latter name, being that by which the bird has been hitherto known in the Colony.
* Trans. N.-Z. Inst. vol. xi. pp. 366, 367.
Mr. Gurney, after a careful study of the series of specimens in the Norwich Museum, wrote to me saying, “I am sure you are right about the distinctness of the two New-Zealand Hieracideœ”; but Professor Button, who still adheres to the contrary opinion, says in one of his last letters:—“I examine and measure carefully every specimen of H. novæ zealandiæ that comes in. So far as my present measurements go they indicate one species only.”
Before passing on, however, to my account of Harpa ferox, I will give here the results of a comparison of two carefully selected birds which I exhibited at a meeting of the Philosophical Institute of Canterbury, as recorded in the ‘Transactions of the New-Zealand Institute’:—
“Among Hawks generally—and the genus Hieracidea is no exception to the rule—the female is both larger and more handsomely marked than the male. Such being the case, let us for our present argument compare an adult female of Hieracidea novæ zealandiæ with an adult female of H. ferox. This will afford us the fairest mode of determining their relative size, and the best means of ascertaining any differences in the plumage of the two species.
“For this purpose I shall lay before the meeting two specimens selected from the type collection in the Canterbury Museum. The larger of these birds was obtained at Castle Hill, and the other on the Bealey—well known localities within this province—and both individuals proved on dissection to be females. The following is a comparative statement of their measurements:—
|H. novæ zealandiæ. inches.||H. ferox. inches.|
|Wing from flexure||12||10·5|
|Culmen (from cere to tip)||1||·8|
|Middle toe and claw||2·8||2·25|
|Hind toe and claw||1·85||1·35|
“It will be seen from this that Hieracidea novæ zealandiæ is a considerably larger bird than H. ferox. It has a proportionately powerful bill, while its legs and feet are decidedly more robust. In the colours and markings of the plumage there is a general similarity between them; but on a close comparison of the two examples exhibited it will be seen that H. novæ zealandiæ has the bars on the upper surface far more distinct and numerous besides being of a brighter rufous, the tail-coverts are more conspicuously marked, the bars on the tail are broader and whiter, and there is a larger amount of white on the throat, breast, and abdomen. In the present example of H. ferox the breast is much darker than in the other bird, the middle portion of each feather being occupied by a broad lanceolate mark of blackish brown, and there is less of the buff and rufous stains which impart so warm an effect to the breast of H. novæ zealandiæ. There are other minute points of difference, but these may be mere individual peculiarities. Enough has, however, been pointed out to show that the two species may be readily distinguished from each other; and this is the only point at issue.
“Of course the whole value of this evidence depends on the accuracy of the ‘sexing’ in each case. I think this, however, is placed beyond all doubt, for the larger bird was determined by Mr. J. D. Enys, who obtained it, while the smaller one was received at the Museum in the flesh, and was dissected by the taxidermist for the express purpose of ascertaining the sex. Mr. Fuller assures me that he was most careful in his examination, and that the specimen exhibited is to an absolute certainty a female.”