82 Mathews, " What are Australian Petrels?"- [,si (lu 



" What are Australian Petrels ? " 



Bv riKEciOKV M. AIathews, F.R.S.E., Fouus Court, Hants., 



England. 



In mv " Birds of Australia " I devoted much space to the elucida- 

 tion of tlie species of Petrels found in Australian seas. I then 

 found, in the course of my investigations, that species were 

 regarded as Australian upon the authority of Gould's inclusion 

 of these in his works. It is necessary to recall that Gould made 

 a special study of these birds upon his voyage out to Australia, 

 and that he concluded that these birds had immense ranges on 

 account of their power of flight. These views have since been 

 modified, and it is now becoming recognized that while there ma}^ 

 be wanderers even as in other groups, as a rule the birds of this 

 order are more or less local in their habits. Other factors are 

 the nocturnal habits of many species, and their custom of breeding 

 on isolated islets, often almost inaccessible. 



In my " List " I included most of the recognized species, but I 

 recorded that I had already rejected three — viz., Procellaria mollis, 

 ProceUaria cookii, and Diomedea albatriis. 



Recently I have gone into the records of many of the other 

 species, with astounding results — viz., that I can trace }io authentic 

 records of the following series : — Fregettoriiis grallarius, Ptiffiniis 

 assimilis assimilis, Reinholdia reinholdi huttoni, Procellaria aajiti- 

 nodialis steadi, Procellaria conspicillata conspicillata, Priofiniis 

 cinereus, Pterodroina macroptera goiildi, Diomedea exiilans chio)i- 

 optcra, Diomedea epomophora epomophora, and Phcrbelria palpehrata 

 huttoni. 



There appears to l)e only one authentic record of Fregetla 

 tropica, Procellaria parkinsoni, Pterodroma inelanopits, Pterodronia 

 iiiexpectata thorn psoni, and Thalassogeron chrysostoma ciilininatiis. 



Such a sweeping series of rejections needs explanation, so before 

 entering this phase I would point out that my object in writing 

 this note is to draw attention to this matter, so that definite records 

 may hv. brought forward. At the present time no authentic 

 records exist, but that does not mean that these species may not 

 be living in .Australian waters, but merely that we have no proof 

 of the fact. I'ntil we secure that proof we cannot recognize the 

 l)ird as Australian, as otherwise we might, instead of curtailing 

 the list, extend it by adding others that might also (with luck) 

 be met with. Thus, I find Reinholdia reinholdi byroni a com- 

 paratively common bird on the coast of New South \\'ales, while 

 Piiffinus assimilis assimilis I have no record of. Yet the latter 

 appears in every list heretofore, and I saw birds in Australian 

 museums under the latter name, whereas they belonged to the 

 former species. 



Again, Ramsa\-, in his " Tabular List," wrote down localities 

 ifhere the species might in his opinion occur, not where they had 

 been knf)wn to occur. Thus, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14 is a regular range 

 for species, indicating that llie ])ir(l might occur in the Wide 



