From the page found by Dysmorodrepanis
www.notornis.org.nz/new_issues/Notornis_51-2004/Notornis_51_4_193.pdfThe tale of the lighthouse-keeper’s cat: Discovery and
extinction of the Stephens Island wren (Traversia lyalli)
ROSS GALBREATH
Onewhero, R.D. 2, Tuakau, New Zealand. onewhero@ps. gen.nz
DEREK BROWN
128B Redwood St, Blenheim, Marlborough, New Zealand
Abstract The Stephens Island wren Traversia lyalli is widely quoted as having been discovered and promptly
exterminated from its only locality, Stephens Island, New Zealand, by a single lighthouse keeper’s cat. Examination
of archival and museum records indicates that this account is oversimplified, and throws more light on the roles
of the lighthouse keeper David Lyall, the dealer Henry Travers, and the ornithologists Sir Walter Buller and Walter
Rothschild. Extinction of the wren was more extended than generally stated: 10 specimens were evidently brought
in by a cat in 1894, but another two-four were obtained in 1895, and two-three more after that and possibly as late as
1899. Fifteen of these specimens are still held in museums. Cat predation probably was the main factor in the wren’s
extinction, but not necessarily by a single cat: cats became established on Stephens Island in 1894, increased rapidly
and exterminated several other species before they were eliminated.
Galbreath, R.; Brown, D. 2004. The tale of the lighthouse-keeper’s cat: Discovery and extinction of the Stephens Island
wren (Traversia lyalli). Notornis 51(4): 193-200.
Keywords Stephens Island wren; Traversia lyalli; extinction; cat predation
Like the dodo (Raphus cacullatus), the Stephens
Island wren (Traversia lyalli) is well-known for
being extinct, and particularly for the manner of
its extinction. As Gill (1991) concisely states it,
‘The story goes that this bird was both discovered,
and soon after eliminated, by a lighthousekeeper’s
cat.’ This story, all the more dramatic for its brevity,
has been recounted many times as the ‘classic case’
(Diamond 1984), even ‘emblematic’ (Quammen
1996) of the extinction of island species unadapted
to mammalian predators.
However, the extinction of the Stephens Island
wren may not have been quite so brief and simple
a process as the version usually repeated has it.
As well as the original published papers by Sir
Walter Buller and Walter Rothschild from which
the standard version is derived, there is further
information in unpublished sources. Some of this
has been drawn on in accounts of Stephens Island
and the wren e.g., Medway (1972), Galbreath (1989),
Brown (2000), but more can be gleaned from the
Rothschild papers held by the Natural History
Museum, London, and from surviving records of
the early years of the Stephens Island lighthouse
in the files of the Marine Department, now lodged
in Archives New Zealand, Wellington. The records
are frustratingly incomplete, but do give more
details of the discovery and extinction of the wren.
These records, and information from the specimens
still held in museums, provide a clearer picture
of the trade in specimens of this species, and the
number obtained as it declined to extinction.
Discovery and naming of Traversia lyalli
The discovery and the extinction of Traversia lyalli
were incidental consequences of the exploitation
of Stephens Island (Takapourewa) as the site for
a lighthouse guarding the western approaches to
Cook Strait. Until this began, the island was rarely
visited and remained largely unmodified, with
intact bush cover and no introduced mammals.
When the work gang arrived in April 1892 to begin
constructing the lighthouse and its associated
facilities, they found ‘birds there in plenty’, as one
of the workers, F.W. Ingram, later recalled. His
list included ‘saddle-back, native thrush, native
crow’ and ‘two kinds of wrens (very small birds)’
(Evening Post, Wellington, 17 April 1926, p. 6)1.
The workers may not have recognised the
significance of the wrens, but word evidently did
get out about the other birds: a natural history
collector came to the island during this time to
obtain specimens of them. His later account of this
visit (Evening Post, Wellington, 11 June 1913, p. 4)
was written under the pseudonym ‘The Collector’,
but the details given, the particular Latin names
used for the birds, and errors in them (such as ‘Prion
herker’ for Prion turtur) reflecting the peculiarities
of his handwriting, suggest that ‘The Collector’
was the Wellington natural history dealer Henry
H. Travers. His account of ‘native land birds at that
time on the island’ made no mention of any wren,
but noted the abundance of saddleback and ‘native
thrush’ (piopio) in particular. Specimens of both the
latter from Stephens Island soon reached Sir Walter
Buller, the foremost authority on New Zealand birds
of the time. Buller referred to them at a meeting of
the Wellington Philosophical Society in January
1893 and commented that ‘it is to be hoped that
these small island sanctuaries will be the means of
preserving many of these rare forms’ (Buller 1893).
Unfortunately, he was not thinking of Stephens
Island as an island sanctuary but was referring to
the scheme being discussed at the time to make
reserves of Resolution Island in the south and Little
Barrier Island in the north and ‘stock’ them with
birds such as saddleback and piopio, which were
rapidly disappearing from the mainland. No-one at
this time seems to have considered the possibilities
of Stephens Island as a ready-made and naturally
well-stocked island reserve requiring only minimal
protection to keep it that way.
The Stephens Island lighthouse began operating
on 29 January 1894, with a staff of three keepers.
With their families and a teacher for the children
there were 17 people living on the island, and
bush was cleared and sheep and cattle brought
in to establish a farm. One or more cats were
also brought to the island. The evidence on how
many cats, and when, will be discussed below,
but at some time during 1894 a cat began bringing
in small birds to one of the keeper’s houses.
One of the assistant keepers, David Lyall, was
interested in natural history and he saved the
specimens and evidently skinned them. Although
no correspondence or other record from Lyall
himself has been found, the sequence of events can
be reconstructed from the account in Buller (1896):
when the government steamer Hinemoa called at
the island on its regular supply run, Lyall gave a
skin to the second engineer, A.W. Bethune, to take
to Wellington to show to Sir Walter Buller. Bethune
often brought Buller specimens from Hinemoa’s
voyages to lighthouses and the subantarctic islands,
but this one interested Buller more than most. As
he put it, ‘There is probably nothing so refreshing
to the soul of a naturalist as the discovery of a new
species. You will readily understand, therefore,
how pleased I was at receiving, through the kind
offices of Mr Bethune, the skin of a bird from
Stephen Island which was entirely distinct from
anything hitherto known’ (Buller 1896).
Records of Buller’s movements, and of Hinemoa,
suggest that this specimen probably reached Buller
in July 1894. At the Wellington Philosophical Society
on 25 July, and again on 5 September, Buller exhibited
other specimens ‘kindly lent to me by Mr Bethune’
(Buller 1895a,b), but he withheld any mention of
the new species in order to publish a description
in Ibis, the journal of the British Ornithologists’
Union. According to Buller, Bethune agreed to lend
him the wren so that he could send it to London
to have an illustration prepared to accompany the
paper (Buller to Rothschild 10 Feb.1895, Rothschild
Papers, Natural History Museum, London).
Buller evidently also received a note from
Lyall: in his paper for Ibis he commented that ‘my
correspondent on the island…has seen three examples,
all of which were brought in at different times by the
cat’, and added that ‘I hope shortly to receive further
specimens of this interesting form’ (Buller 1895c).
But it seems that word of the wrens and their
possible commercial value had got out, and Lyall
had been persuaded to supply someone else
instead: Henry Travers. Travers often supplied
Buller with specimens (he had recently returned
from a collecting expedition on Hinemoa sponsored
by Buller), but when he received nine skins of the
wren from Lyall he knew where he could get a
better price for them. For some time he had also
been supplying birds to the Hon. Walter Rothschild
of Tring, in England, who was much wealthier than
Buller, and well-known for his determination to
acquire rare species for his private museum, not just
in ones and twos, but in large series. In fact, Buller
too had been selling large numbers of skins and
live birds to Rothschild, including, just at this time,
a consignment of eight live piopio from Stephens
Island (listed in Buller’s account dated 18 October
1894, Rothschild Papers, Natural History Museum,
London). When Travers received the wrens from
Lyall he wrote offering them to Rothschild:
‘I have thought it better to forward the 9 specimens
of the new Xenicus at once, so that in case you accept
my offer, you can place them before any of your
scientific friends, in order to prevent any chance of
its being described here, although I do not think it
is likely, as the locality is only known to myself and
the man who is collecting for me. In the event of
your accepting my offer, I shall be glad if you will
cause the name of Mr D. Lyall, Lighthouse Keeper
Stephens Island, to be mentioned as the discoverer,
& that it was forwarded to you by me. It was found
on Stephens Island and I quote the finder’s words
“The rock wrens are very hard to get, and in a
short time there will be none left. I have never seen
many of them, and I think they cannot have been
very common at any time”.’ (Travers to Rothschild
9 October 1894, Rothschild Papers, Natural History
Museum, London).
According to Buller (1896, p. 341, footnote),
Travers sent the wrens to Rothschild ‘Some weeks
after my specimen had reached the editor of the
Ibis, and whilst Mr Keulemans was preparing a
drawing of it’. However, Rothschild moved quickly
on receiving the wrens from Travers, and used a
faster route to publication than Buller had done.
As Rothschild (1907) told it, he wrote a paper for
the British Ornithologists’ Club describing the new
species, and sent his museum curator, Ernst Hartert,
to the Club’s next meeting on 19 December to
present it. When Hartert did so the Club President,
P.L. Sclater (who was also editor of Ibis), pointed
out that Buller’s paper describing the same species
was already in press in Ibis, but Hartert insisted he
had no authority to withdraw Rothschild’s paper.
It was duly published in the Club’s Proceedings
when they were printed only 10 days later, on
29 December (Rothschild, 1894). The issue of Ibis
containing Buller’s paper (with Keulemans’s fine
coloured lithograph, which obviously had taken
some time to produce) did not appear until the
following April (Buller 1895c). Rothschild’s name
for the new species, Traversia lyalli, thus took
priority over Buller’s name Xenicus insularis.
Buller and Rothschild sniped at each other for years
afterward about this. Buller (1905) still refused to accept
Rothschild’s name, suggesting that Rothschild should
have acted the gentleman and stood back when told
that Buller’s paper was already in press. Rothschild
(1907) agreed that it was hard luck on Buller being
pipped at the post, but countered by insinuating
that Buller was not really a gentleman, but was like
Travers, a trader in specimens (Rothschild 1907).
Their bitter arguments in print are fully related by
Fuller (1987).
In naming the wren Rothschild not only took
Travers’s hint and named the species after him
and Lyall, but also followed Lyall and used the
vernacular name of Stephens Island ‘rock wren’
(Rothschild 1895). Rothschild did not confuse it
with the rock wren Xenicus gilviventris, but others,
possibly including Lyall, did. Edward Lukins, who
visited Stephens Island in 1894, included ‘Rock
Wren (Xenicus Gilviventris)’ in his list of the birds
of the island (Colonist, Nelson, 27 October 1894).
From the details given in his report (leaving Nelson
by Anchor Co. steamer on a Wednesday afternoon
and joining Wallace Webber’s mail run to Stephens
Island the next day) Lukins’s visit can be dated
to 11-12 October – shortly after Lyall had sent the
consignment of nine wrens to Travers. Given that
Lukins presented his extensive list of 31 species as
those ‘found on the Island’ rather than actually seen
by him, it seems likely that he drew on the records
of Lyall, or others, on the island. The order of the
birds on the list and the names used suggest that it
was drawn up using Buller’s Manual of the birds of
New Zealand (1882), which Lyall certainly made use
of (see his comments quoted in Buller (1899, p. 32)).
Perhaps he identified the island’s birds from the
Manual and its monochrome illustrations, and did
not yet recognise that the wren was a new species.
Almost as soon as the discovery of Traversia
lyalli became publicly known with the appearance
of Rothschild’s paper there were suggestions that
the bird was already extinct. On 16 March 1895,
Christchurch’s Press carried an editorial about it,
criticising the taking of cats to Stephens Island and
commenting that
‘there is very good reason to believe that the
bird is no longer to be found on the island, and,
as it is not known to exist anywhere else, it has
apparently become quite extinct. This is probably
a record performance in the way of extermination.
The English scientific world will hear almost
simultaneously of the bird’s discovery and its
disappearance before anything is known of its lifehistory
or its habits.’
Indeed, while Buller and Rothschild had been
scrambling to name the species, and Lyall and
Travers to obtain specimens for them, very little
had been recorded about the living birds. Buller
(1895c) noted only that ‘My correspondent on the
island informs me that the bird is semi-nocturnal in
its habits’. Travers reported slightly more extensive
comments in a letter to Rothschild:
‘I was told…that the most likely time to find it
was the winter, as it was during that time the cat
brought most of the specimens to the house. Living
specimens have been only twice seen, and on each
occasion the person who saw it had no gun; he stated
that it was running around the rocks like a mouse,
and was so quick in its movements that he could
not get near enough to hit it with a stick or stone’
(Travers to Rothschild, 7 March 1895, Rothschild
Papers, Natural History Museum, London).
On the basis of these observations, Rothschild
(1895) stated that the wren ‘did not fly at all’;
subsequently Rothschild (1907) also noted
structural features, such as ‘the weak character
of the wing, which points to flightlessness’ – a
conclusion rejected by others until Millener (1989)
confirmed it from skeletal evidence. Millener
(1984, 1989) also confirmed, from cave deposits,
another suggestion first made by Rothschild (1907):
that Traversia lyalli was relict on Stephens Island
and had once been widespread on the New Zealand
mainland.
The trade in specimens and the extinction of
Traversia lyalli
Was the wren really exterminated promptly with
its discovery in 1894 as suggested by the Press, and
repeated in most accounts since? The records of
specimens obtained by Buller and Travers indicate
that the process of extermination may have been a
little more extended.
After Buller and Travers received their initial
specimens of the wren in 1894 they each pressed
Lyall for more. In February 1895, before Buller
learned that he had been beaten in the naming
of the wren, he wrote to Rothschild mentioning
that ‘The Stephens Island man….has not sent
me yet any specimens of Xenicus islandicus, but
seems confident about getting them, (Buller to
Rothschild, 10 February 1895, Rothschild Papers,
Natural History Museum, London). But Buller had
been beaten again (perhaps he was not offering
Lyall enough ?): two weeks earlier Travers had
also written to Rothschild announcing that he was
sending a jar containing ‘the only other specimen
of the bird that my correspondent has been able
to secure – it is in spirit’ – i.e. an entire, unskinned
bird in alcohol (Travers to Rothschild, 24 January
1895, Rothschild Papers, Natural History Museum,
London). Travers later sent his account charging
Rothschild £5 for this specimen (Travers to Hartert,
24 December 1895, Rothschild Papers, Natural
History Museum, London). However, it was not
in the consignment received by Rothschild and
although Travers promised on several occasions
afterward to replace the missing wren, he never
did, and Rothschild had to be content with his
original nine specimens.
In March 1895 Travers reported to Rothschild that
he had obtained another specimen, also in spirit:
‘I have recently returned from a special trip
to Stephens Island where I went to have a good
hunt for more specimens of Traversia Lyalli, but
unfortunately without success. I hunted the island
over and round and as I had three men with
me who formed my boat crew, and some of the
residents of the island, you can imagine we made a
thorough search…. I did not get any specimens of
the bird I went specifically for, although Mr Lyall’s
boy gave me a specimen that had been found
just alive by the owner of the cat that had caught
the others, and this his father had put into spirit’
(Travers to Rothschild, 7 March 1895, Rothschild
Papers, Natural History Museum, London).
By November, Travers reported that ‘My friend
Mr Lyall informs me (a few days ago) that he has not
seen another specimen of the Xenicus and believes
it to be quite extinct…. I however have the two
specimens in spirits that I have mentioned to you’
(Travers to Hartert 28 November 1895, Rothschild
Papers, Natural History Museum, London).
Despite Lyall’s pessimistic view, Traversia
lyalli may not yet have been quite extinct: further
specimens reached both Travers and Buller for
several years after this. The suggestion of extinction
was, however, used by Travers for commercial
advantage. In the same letter to Hartert, Travers
stated that as the species was ‘certainly to my mind
extinct’ he would now ask ‘at least £50 each’ for
his two specimens. But even Rothschild jibbed at
such a price and Travers later trimmed it back to
£12 (Travers to Hartert, 13 May 1896, Rothschild
Papers, Natural History Museum, London). Since
he had charged Rothschild £5 for the missing
spirit specimen only a few months earlier, this
still represented a considerable premium for the
extinction of the species. To place such prices in
perspective, the lighthouse keepers on Stephens
Island were earning an average of £140 a year at
this time (Appendices to the Journal of the House of
Representatives 1896, H-15 p. 15).
In August 1895, when he finally included the
wren in one of his regular papers to the Wellington
Philosophical Society, Buller argued that rare birds
should not be collected for ‘trade purposes’, but that
specimens should still be obtained for museums,
especially ‘a complete type-collection for the Colonial
Museum’ (Buller 1896). That may have been his
position in public, but privately he still continued to
seek specimens for his own collection; indeed the high
prices Buller and Rothschild were prepared to pay
made it difficult for any public museum to compete.
In the same August 1895 paper, Buller noted that
he had recently ‘had the opportunity of examining
a female specimen’ of the wren, different from the
original specimen Bethune had lent him, which
he now suggested had been a male (Buller 1896).
Buller evidently obtained the female specimen
for his collection – when he later reprinted the
1895 paper he altered the phrase quoted above to
indicate that he ‘had secured’ it (Buller 1905).
Buller (1905) briefly summarised his further
dealings in specimens of the wren: ‘Besides a pair
in my son’s collection, I purchased a specimen
from Mr Henry Travers for Canon Tristram’. The
date of the purchase for Tristram (Canon H.B.
Tristram, a notable English ornithologist with a
large private collection) is not known, but must
have been some time before October 1898, when
Tristram in turn sold the specimen to the Liverpool
Public Museum (Fisher 1981). As for the pair in
Buller’s son’s collection, Buller’s statement leaves it
uncertain who supplied them, or when. Similarly, it
is not clear what happened to the original specimen
Bethune had lent to Buller, the type of his Xenicus
insularis. Although Buller often managed to retain
specimens lent to him, in this case it may have
gone back to Bethune. Bethune had evidently
been building up his own collection: in December
1895 he left a number of cases of bird skins at the
Colonial Museum for safekeeping while he went
overseas (295/1895, item 109, box 10, MU000095,
Te Papa archives). The fate of this collection after it
was uplifted from the museum in 1897 is unknown,
although Bethune’s collection of birds’ eggs went
to Edgar Stead and thence to Canterbury Museum
(Wilson 1959, pp. 6-7).
Received 18 May 2004; accepted 15 September 2004
Editor M. Williams
1 ‘saddle-back’ = South Island saddleback (Philesturnus c.carunculatus);
‘native thrush’ = South Island piopio (Turnagra c.capensis); ‘native crow’
= South Island kokako (Callaeas c.cinerea
