The late Sir Walter Buller described, in 1873, _Miro traversi_ as follows: "Adult male. The whole of the plumage black, the base of the feathers dark plumbeous; wing-feathers and their coverts tinged with brown, the former greyish on their inner surface; tail-feathers black, very slightly tinged with brown. Irides dark brown; bill black; tarsi and toes blackish brown, the soles of the feet dull yellow. Total length 6 inches; wing, from flexure, 3.4; tail 2.6; bill 0.5, tarsus 1.1; middle toe and claw 0.1, hind toe and claw 0.8 inch." "Female. Slightly smaller than the male, and without the brown tinge on the wings and tail." It may be added that _Miro traversi_ is not pure black, but of a somewhat brownish slaty black. _Miro traversi_ is only known from the Chatham Islands, where it was formerly very common, but, according to a letter from the late W. Hawkins, the cats, which have been introduced to destroy rats and rabbits, have exterminated it. It seems to have disappeared from Warekauri, the main island of the Chatham group, long ago, for H. O. Forbes (Ibis 1893, p. 524) and Henry Palmer found it, in 1890 and 1892, only on the outlying islets of Mangare and Little Mangare. The bird from the Snares is quite different, being deep glossy black and having a shorter and narrower first primary. I named it _M. dannefaerdi_. It is to be feared that a similar fate will one day befall it as has, apparently, already befallen its congener from the Chatham Islands. Sir Walter Buller (Suppl. B.N.Z. II, p. 125) has confounded _M. traversi_ and _dannefaerdi_, and the figure he gave on his plate looks so black, that I do not doubt it represents rather the latter than the former. Of course _M. dannefaerdi_ alone occurs on the Snares, and Buller's _traversi_ from the Snares were all dannefaerdi. Dr. Finsch's statement (Ibis 1888, p. 308) that Reischek's specimen from the Snares "agreed in every respect with specimens from the Chatham Islands" is entirely wrong, for, even if {16} one prefers unscientifically to lump allied forms, one cannot say that a _Miro_ from the Chathams agrees in every respect with one from the Snares. Buller's doubts about the distinctness of the latter might easily have been removed, if he had taken the trouble to compare them, for it does not require any genius to see the differences. I admit that with my present views on geographical forms I would regard the two _Miro_ as sub-species, and call them _M. traversi traversi_ and _M. traversi dannefaerdi_, but most ornithologists would still consider them to be "good species." I may add that Buller, l.c., p. 125, has not quoted my description correctly, for in his rendering are several disturbing misprints, and in the fourth line from the bottom occurs a "not" which ought not to be there, and which makes the sentence incomprehensible. Also the name itself is spelt incorrectly.