( ^If' ) 



I do not at all consider the (|nestion of the varion'; Australian forms of Pfl/frtr<fiis 

 qnite satisfactorily settled, but it seems to me that the l'iii/<ir(/>/s striijoidt's, which 

 inhabits the greater part of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia 

 and Tasmania (from where I have no examples before me), is represented in Western 

 and NortluTU Australia, eastwards to North Queensland, by a srenerally smaller and 

 lighter, more delicately marked subspecies, P. phalaciioide» of Gould, though some- 

 times individuals cannot easily be distinguished, and some are quite intermediate. 

 Australian ornithologists should begin to investigate this question thoroughly! 

 Gould himself apjiealed to field-ornithologists to investigate whether the differences 

 in colour were due to the sex of tlie specimens. I, in 181»"2, said, " It must be 

 left to Australian field-ornithologists to study these forms carefully," and I must 

 repeat this once more. I believe, however, that if good series are collected by 

 competent ornithologists, it will be found that the following forms occur in 

 Australia : 



Podaiqua papuensis : a New Guinea species, only extending to the Cape York 

 Peninsula, rarely farther south. 



Fodniyiis occllatus minnoratKS : a subspecies of the Papuan P. o. ocellatus, 

 found in Northern (and Eastern) Australia. 



I'odargiis strigoides strigo/des : roughly speaking, the Eastern portion of 

 Australia. There is every possible intergradation between the various aberrations, 

 only jj/ialaeno/dfs being more or less separated and having another distribution. 



Podargus strigoidi's phalaenoidcs : a Western and Northern form of g/r/gonh's, 

 Here is an interesting piece of work for our Australian friends. Opinions 

 cannot settle such questions. Such remarks as, " I am not yet prepared to admit 

 that . . ." do not bring ns any further. Hie Phodus, hie salta ! 



121. Aegotheles novaehoUandiae (? leucogaster). 



[Aegotheles leucogaslrr Gould, P.Z.S. 1844. p. lOG (Port Essington).] 



When I wrote the catalogue of the Podargidae in the British Museum {Cat. B. 

 xvi., 1892) I could not make out that two subsjjecies could be distinguished in 

 Australia, but the material available was absolutely inadequate. I am now of 

 opinion, from what 1 have recently seen, that it is after all possible that two 

 forms, a more southern and eastern, which I should call the true notachollandiae, 

 and a more northern and western one, which would be li'iicognstcr of Gould, can 

 be distinguished. 



Recently Mr. Robert Hall has described as new a form from the Fitzroy 

 River, first naming it Ae. rx/cscens ; afterwards, having found out that the name 

 rufescens was already used for another species, renaming it Ar. riifa {Victorian 

 yaturalist, xviii. pp. (iO, 89. 1902). Locality and descrijition suggest a priori that 

 Mr. Hall's supposed new form (if different from Ae. iiocaehoUaitdiae noeaeliollandiae) 

 is Gould's leucogaster. The series now before me — i.e. the sj)ecimens collected by 

 Mr. Tunucy, some from Point C'luutes collected by Mr. Tom Carter, and some from 

 Northern Queensland — show beyond doubt that the rufous-cinnamon examples are 

 not specifically different from the grey ones, for we have all intermediates between 

 both forms from the same districts. Tlius Mr. Hall created two new synonyms at 

 once. The question only remains whether there are two subsjiecies ; and I believe 

 that one should distinguish the north-western ones as leacoga.-<ter, because they are 

 mostly lighter and larger, and cinnamon examples are more fn'quently found among 



