_Sceloglaux rufifacies_ Buller, Ibis 1904, p. 639; id. Suppl. B. New
Zealand II, p. 65, pl. VII (1906).
Original description: "Adult female: Similar to _Sceloglaux albifacies_,
but appreciably smaller; face dull rufous brown, instead of being white;
crown and nape blackish brown; entire upper surface strongly suffused with
rufous; quills marked with regular transverse bars and a terminal edging of
rufous brown; tail-feathers uniform yellowish brown, obscurely barred with
pale brown; bill lemon-yellow; feet dull yellow."
"Wairarapa district, near Wellington, North Island, in the summer 1868-9."
This supposed "species" is a very doubtful one. A close examination in the
Tring Museum of the type (which was offered me for such a high price that I
did not feel justified in buying it, fond as I am of possessing extinct
forms, types and varieties) by Messrs. Hartert, Hellmayr and myself proved
beyond doubt to all three of us that the specimen was not fully adult, but
showed signs of immaturity. If I said to Sir Walter Buller that it was an
extremely young, hardly fledged _Sceloglaux_ this was certainly incorrect,
and was perhaps just an exclamation after a hasty preliminary examination,
for the bird is of course fully fledged and has passed, at least partially,
through one moult of the feathers. On the other hand, both Professor
Newton's and Dr. Sharpe's reputed statements that the owl in question is
fully adult are not correct. It certainly shows unmistakable signs of
immaturity, as noticed at once by Dr. Gadow (cf. Newton's letter on p. 66,
l.c.), by Hartert, Hellmayr and myself. Moreover Professor Newton--though
Buller says he "pronounced it to be an adult bird"--also admits that the
bird "had moulted, though not necessarily to be in adult plumage," and he
continues that he thinks the character of the markings continues to be
juvenile.
Having thus discussed the age of this owl, the question must be considered
if it is different from _S. albifacies_ from the South Island. This is less
easily done. Buller described it as a "new species," and mentions among the
distinctive characters (see above) the colour of the tail. The tail,
however, is "skillfully" (as Buller calls it, though I should use a less
complimentary adverb) stuck in, and does not belong to a _Sceloglaux_, but
to an Australian _Ninox_, and also some feathers on the neck are foreign.
The wings being abraded, its slightly smaller length is not very
significant. Certainly, however, the colouration in general is slightly
more rufous than {78} in _S. albifacies_, though some of my specimens
approach it almost completely, and the face is more rufescent. Professor
Newton cautiously warned Sir Walter Buller, suggesting that _S. albifacies_
might possibly have a red "phase," like _Syrnium aluco_, and this North
Island specimen represented the latter. As for myself, I do not think that
_S. albifacies_ has two phases, as I have seen too many specimens, and
found them to vary but little. I have now in my collection eight specimens
from the South Island. On the other hand, I have not seen juvenile
examples; but it is very likely that the rufous face of the North Island
specimen is a character peculiar to the North Island form, which would then
be a sub-species of _S. albifacies_ from the South Island, and should be
called _S. albifacies rufifacies_. The type from Wairapara is said to have
been killed in the summer of 1868-9, and, since no further evidence of its
existence has come forth, I presume that the North Island race of this owl
must be extinct by this time.
{79}