Ç   D .W . .5 /  DY a  5D t  w[ {   wt Ç"" " !W5 í  ÇI &'(' /   b ù b    a  L   w  5 !   )   " í "* " Ç t+ t " h "  * {  b  ù"  t* /& //0/1 2 /30/4

Order SPHENISCIFORMES: The Sphenisciformes is placed before Procellariiformes following numerous previous authors (e.g. Oliver 1930, 1955; Peters 1931; Checklist Committee 1953, 1970; Harrison 1983; Marchant & Higgins 1990; Howard & Moore 1991; del Hoyo et al. 1992; Christidis & Boles 1994) and in new research (e.g. Sibley & Ahlquist 1990; Sibley & Monroe 1990; McKitrick 1991; Paterson et al. 1993, 1995, 2000; Warham 1996: 481; Paterson & Gray 1997; Nunn & Stanley 1998; Livezey & Zusi 2001; van Tuinen et al. 2001; Kennedy & Page 2002; Livezey & Zusi 2007). However, Sphenisciformes was placed after Procellariiformes by Checklist Committee (1990), presumably following Mayr & Cottrell (1979). The reasons for the latter sequence were not adequately detailed by Mayr & Cottrell (1979: vi) who referred to Jollès et al. (1976) although the latter authors did not provide a justification for the new arrangement. Subsequent publications have provided no reason to change the traditional taxonomic order. Some authors consider Procellariiformes to be the likely ancestor of Sphenisciformes (e.g. Simpson 1971, 1975) but this is far from clear (e.g. Clarke et al. 2003, Davis & Renner 2003, Dyke & van Tuinen 2004, Ksepka et al. 2006).

Family SPHENISCIDAE Bonaparte: Penguins Spheniscidae Bonaparte, 1831: Giornale Arcadico di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti 49: 62 – Type Spheniscus Brisson, 1760.

Several subfamilies have been used in the past for penguins but currently most authors use one family, Spheniscidae, for all penguins (e.g. Simpson 1971, 1975). While Ksepka et al. (2006) suggested that only modern genera be classified as Spheniscidae, they considered it premature to apply names to extinct clades.

The arrangement of genera departs from previous New Zealand Checklists (Checklist Committee 1953, 1970, 1990) and follows the most widely used taxonomic sequence (e.g. Peters 1931, Marples 1946a, Falla & Mougin 1979, Harrison 1983, Marchant & Higgins 1990, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Howard & Moore 1991, de Hoyo et al. 1992, Christidis & Boles 1994). The generic relationships suggested by these lists and strongly supported by recent research (e.g. O’Hara 1989; Baker et al. 2001, 2006; Davis & Renner 2003; Giannini & Bertelli 2004; Bertelli & Giannini 2005; Ksepka et al. 2006; Walsh & Suárez 2006) are that Eudyptes and are sister taxa. The arrangement of within genera reflects the findings of Davis & Renner (2003).

Genus Eudyptes Vieillot Eudyptes Vieillot, 1816 (April): Analyse Nouv. Ornith. Elem.: 67, 70 – Type species (by subsequent designation) chrysocome J.R. Forster = Eudyptes chrysocome (J.R. Forster). Catarrhactes Cuvier, 1816 (December): Règne Anim. 1: 513. Junior homonym of Catarrhactes Herman, 1783. Chrysocoma Stephens, 1826: in Shaw, General Zool. 13(1): 57 – Type species (by tautonymy) Aptenodytes chrysocome J.R. Forster = Eudyptes chrysocome (J.R. Forster). Catarhactes Brandt, 1837: Bull. l’Acad. Imp. Sci., St Petersburg 2: 314. Unjustified emendation. Penguinus Mathews, 1911: Australia 1(5): 276 – Type species (by original designation) Aptenodytes chrysocome J.R. Forster = Eudyptes chrysocome (J.R. Forster). Junior homonym of Penguinus Brünnich, 1771. Catadyptes Mathews, 1934: Bull. Brit. Ornith. Club 55: 74 – Type species (by original designation) Catarhactes chrysolophus Brandt = Eudyptes chrysolophus (Brandt).

Members of the genus Eudyptes are known as “crested penguins”. The genera Catarractes Brisson, 1760 and Penguinus Brünnich, 1771 have been used for species of crested penguins, but we regard them as nomina dubia following Mathews & Iredale (1913: 219). The identity of the species referred to as Eudyptes vittata Finsch, 1875a has not been confirmed (Falla & Mougin 1979: 129), so we regard this name as a nomen dubium. Rockhopper penguins rarely reach mainland New Zealand—mainly the Otago coast (e.g. Richdale 1940: 203, 1957: 1, 176; Checklist Committee 1953; Oliver 1955; Warham 1985; Ahlers 1988; Marchant & Higgins 1990; Hocken 2001; CM AV853)— but the specific status of most of these birds has not been determined. Eudyptes sclateri Buller Erect-crested Penguin Aptenodytes papua; Vieillot 1834, Gal. des Oiseaux 2: 246, pl. 299. Not Aptenodytes papua J.R. Forster, 1781. Eudyptes sclateri Buller, 1888: History of the Birds of N.Z., 2nd edition 2: 289 – Auckland Islands. Name placed in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (fide ICZN 1976, Opinion 1056. Bull. Zool. Nomenclature 33(1): 16). Eudyptes chrysocome; Reischek 1888, Trans. Proc. N.Z. Inst. 21: 386. Not Aptenodytes chrysocome J.R. Forster, 1781. Eudyptes chrysocome; Sclater 1888, Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1888 (19): 265. Not Aptenodytes chrysocome J.R. Forster, 1781. Catarrhactes sclateri Buller; Buller 1905, Suppl. Birds N.Z. 1: 88. Eudyptes chrysocome sclateri Buller; Mathews & Iredale 1913, Ibis 1 (10th ser.): 220. Eudyptes pachyrhynchus sclateri Buller; Checklist Committee 1953, Checklist N.Z. Birds: 15. Eudyptes sclateri Buller; Checklist Committee 1990, Checklist Birds N.Z.: 74.

Breeding in large numbers on the Antipodes and Bounty Islands and in the past in small numbers at Campbell Island / Motu Ihupuku and on Disappointment Island (Auckland Group; Marchant & Higgins 1990). Attempted to breed on Otago Peninsula, 1938–47 (Richdale 1950). Straggles to coasts of North, South and Stewart / Rakiura Islands (Marchant & Higgins 1990). A regular visitor to Snares Islands/ Tini Heke and Chatham Islands from Nov. to Mar. (Miskelly et al. 2001a, 2006; Miskelly & Bell 2004) and rarely to Macquarie Island (Marchant & Higgins 1990). Occasionally reaches Tasmania and southern Australia (Marchant & Higgins 1990) and the Indian Ocean (Speedie 1992). One that reached the Falkland Islands was present 1961–66; in at least one season it tended eggs with a western rockhopper penguin but no chicks were raised (Napier 1968); another was seen there c. 1999 (Gurunathan 2004). No fossil or midden records reported from mainland New Zealand sites are verifiable (Worthy 1997e). The abundant Chatham Island Holocene fossil and midden Eudyptes material previously referred to this species (Checklist Committee 1990, Davis & Renner 2003), is now considered to represent an undescribed taxon (Tennyson & Millener 1994, Millener 1999).