( 424 ) 



<!. Artamus leucorhynchus parvirostris sulisp. nov. 



Notwithstandiug the various stati'iueuts, by ornithological authorities, that the 

 Australian specimens of Artamus leucm-hynckus conld not be distinguished from 

 those of other countries, I noticed at once that they had strikingly small bills, and 

 when comparing them with our large series from many localities I found that the 

 Australian s])ecimens were exceedingly much alike, and that the exposed part of 

 their culmen was generally 15 to 10 mm. and never exceeded 17 mm., while it was 

 18 to 22 mm. in specimens from other localities. The difference, though numerically 

 slight, is striking in the specimens. Those from Celebes and the Sunda Islands 

 have the largest beaks, those from Timor, New Guinea, and from the Philippines, 

 have them generally somewhat smaller, but the differences are very small and not 

 constant enough for even snbspecitic separation, while those from the Andamana 

 have their beaks of the same small size as those from Queensland ! It would 

 therefore, according to the diagnosis of my new subspecies, be necessary to call them 

 also A. I. parvirostris. I believe it is very interesting, even for those who do not 

 accept this subspecies, to know that A. leucorhynchus is not so constant as 

 ornithologists made us believe, and that (as in some other cases) a form deviates 

 from its average form in the centre (?) of its distribution in a similar way in both 

 directions towards the outer limits of its area. Other such examples are Cacatua 

 triton, Nyctidromas albicollis, Macropteryx mystacea. 



I cannot agree with Sharpe and Salvadori in rejecting the oldest Linnaean name 

 leucorhynchus. Brissou's figure is correct, his description leaves no doubt, and only 

 this form inhabits the Philippines, so that there is no reason for rejecting this name; 

 in fact, there are many less certain names in use in ornithology than .4, leucorhynchus. 

 The npperside may, in contradiction to the white nnderside, have been termed black 

 without going far wrong. 



'i. Piezorhynchus leucotis (Gould). 



A nice series from. Cape York, whence the type'came. The male is well figured in 

 the " Supplement to the Birds of Australia." The female differs very much from the 

 adult male. It has no black on the throat, has a buff shade across the lower throat, 

 is dark brown above, has only white edges to the scapulars and the chest and sides 

 of body brownish. The young male resembles the adult female. 6 ad. : " Iris 

 brown, feet slate-colour, bill bluish slate-colour with a black tip." 



4. Arses kaupi Gould. 



The young malf (or female ?) has a rusty brown band across the chest, no black 

 chin, the collar on tlie hind-neck much narrower, upperside brownish. Another 

 specimen, also marked " S" and evidently l)ecoming black on the back, is without 

 a rusty band across the breast. The adult male has the bill " chalky blue, the eye 

 surrounded by dark blue eyelids, the iris brown, feet bluish slate-colour." 



n. Poecilodryas albifacies Sharpe. 



<?(??, Cape York, 21. 7., 5. s., 7. 8. 1S98. " Iris brown, feet light horn-colonr, 

 bill black." 



I cannot perceive any difterences between New Guinea siiecimens and those 

 from Cape York. The Ijird is described from New Guinea. 



