Vol. XXII 

 1923 



] ROBERTS. Birds of the Cranite Belt 295 



containini^- in all nine lis,nn-es ; in the letterpress many pages of 

 detail are i^iven as to colour and synonymy; habit is to a certain 

 extent considered, and likewise habitat. For it all we can only 

 express the utmost admiration without reservation. The more 

 closely it is studied, the more illuminating it will be found. It is, 

 however, a matter of regret, so far as we are concerned, that 

 nesting is not more fully considered from the point of view which 

 \\e have taken. P>ut it is realised that, though Mr. Mathews has 

 magnificent material to work upon, this aspect of the subject may 

 not have presented itself to him through, curiously enough, lack 

 of material. A hope that our study may to some extent rectify 

 this is expressed; and although the framework of this article was 

 constructed prior to 1922, and plans laid for building in the detail, 

 we take pride in the fact that in July, 1922, this eminent authority 

 wrote : "Also more stress must be laid upon bird habits in con- 

 nection with classification than hitherto. The best way to 

 arrive at such results will be the study of small groups by local 

 workers, as instance the relationships of Gerygone and .Icanthica 

 in their widest sense and then the inter-relationship of the species. 

 It may prove that the most different superficially are really the 

 most allied, and vice versa" (preface to vol. ix., B. of A.). That 

 there is doubt, at least, of the inter-relationship of species which 

 he speaks of, is amply proven by a comparison of his work and 

 the Check-list of the R.A.O.U., both of this year of grace, 1922. 

 The R.A.O.U. Check-list lists among the Acanthisa the follow- 

 ing as distinct species : Apicalis, Alhiventris, Ewingi, Hamiltoni, 

 Kathcrina, and IVhitlocki, whilst Mathews makes these sub- 

 species of Pusilla. Further, such well-known names as Diemen- 

 ensis and Pyrrliopygia* to take some at random, disapjiear from 

 both lists, evidently being merged into Pusilla by both authorities. 

 We have already indicated sketchily the nests of the subjects 

 chosen; but it is necessary to make a closer study if essential 

 differences are to be found. Smicroriiis begins with a cup mostly 

 attached to its supports, which, as already mentioned, may be 

 upright or hanging by its lips and sides, and adds a dome and 

 hood, which are unattached to the supports. This attachment to 

 either upright or hanging supports is interesting, and is always 

 accomplished in the same manner. Albogtilaris begins with a 

 hollow collapsible mass suspended by its top. The three accepted 

 Acanthicnid species (for Chrysorrhous has for long been placed 

 outside this genus) pass from the magnificent structure of 

 Lineata, solid yet swaying to every breeze, through the roughly 

 woven nest of Pusilla, with its rudimentary suspension to the 

 bark hut of Regnloides devoid of any suspension and innocent of 

 adornment. 



Detailing of structure requires the use of two terms which 

 must be defined: Homologous meaning having a similar origin, 



* A. pyrrhoppgia—a preoccupied name— is replaced by A. hamiltoni. Eds. 



