( 1';^ ) 



the most iinijuvtiint which have yet iipjieared on geographical distributioa in 

 Australia, have not received the recoguition they deserve — -perhaps dne to the 

 author's method of mathematically showing the facts, a means not well appre- 

 ciated by working ornithologists. 1 would have liked to enlarge upon those 

 papers ; bnt as this is not the place for a long essay, I only wish to state that 

 my examinations confirm Hall's papers most fully, and I can endorse the principles 

 there put forward. Of course my large series has enabled me sometimes to 

 detect inaccuracies ; bnt in the main they have indicated the great accuracy and 

 value of these writings, which may be considered the starting-point of a new era 

 of investigation in Australian ornithology. I hope that a study of this List, in 

 conjunction with the two ])apers by Hall, will lead to a better appreciation of our 

 Bird-life, and that it will become recognised that the study of Australian birds 

 must henceforth be systematically undertaken, and that a good knowledge of tiie 

 birds of one's own locality is more vahuible than a scant knowledge of the Birds 

 of Australia. 1 am fully convinced that the day is now past when collections of 

 the Anstralian Avifauna can be brought together in a representative manner by 

 every individnal, and, furthermore, the serious study of such collections is' almost 

 impossible to every one. The literature to be studied is now so vast and complex, 

 aud so much of it is inaccessible to any save those in direct touch with the 

 most complete libraries, that it is imperative that specialisation must be under- 

 taken ; and it is to urge upon Australian ornithologists the necessity for such 

 specialisation that this List is put forward. 



I do not claim that the nomenclature in this List can be accepted as final, 

 but I can confidently state that the emendations and alterations will be com- 

 paratively few, and that the facts herein will bear the strictest criticism. I 

 confidently anticipate that the more honest criticism, based upon observed facts, 

 not inaccurate suppositions, this List receives, the better it will be understood ; 

 and that, freed from the shackles of binomial species, the new ornithology will 

 lead us to what we all desire — a recognition of " the why and the wherefore " 

 of the Australian Avifauna. 



As regards the Vernacular Names for the birds, I have closely followed 

 the A.A.A.S. Vernacular List, only differing in a very few cases where my 

 series iudicated a change of nomination. 



Li my HiimIIM I included the Birds of Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands, 

 and then later rejected them as a part of the Australian Ornis. My reasons for 

 such action 1 have given in the fifth part of my Birds of Australia, p. 2.J5, 

 and I here simply note that further investigation has shown that the nearest 

 relation of the Avifanna of these islands is after all to Australia. Mr. A. F. 

 Basset Hall has proposed to include them as a seiJarate subregion, the " Phillipian," 

 and with this arrangement 1 agree. 1 have therefore given at the conclusion of 

 this List a short " List of the Birds of the Phillipian .Subregion." ijy this means 

 I hope to satisfy my friends, whatever views they may hold. 1 propose to deal 

 with the Avifaunas of th<'se Groups at length elsewhere. 



The opinion of those who have studied nomenclature is summed up in the 

 following : " It may be admitted as possible that temporary confusion will result 

 from the strict ai)piication of the Law of Priority . . . but such confusion will 

 assuredly bo less than would result from the recognition of the first exception to 

 the Law of Priority, which would be permanent in character, and at the same time 

 establish a precedent for repeated waivers of its provisions by individual zoologists. 



