Lelters, Extracts, and Notes. 665 



of New Guinea' yet anotlier Australian form under the 

 name of R. dryas, in whicli the tail-feathers are the same as 

 in R. mayi, but the " spangled marks on the hreast are 

 absent." I have never seen a specimen of R. dryas, hut 

 Gould's description, as well as his figure in the work before 

 quoted, conclusively show that the " spangled marks " are 

 absent in R. dryas, whereas they are present in the other 

 forms. 



In my description of R. mayi in ' The Emu ' of July 1911, 

 I suggested that these were all one species and that as one 

 travelled up the Australian coast to the north, and then 

 after passing Cape York to the west a gradual transition 

 took place, of which Rhipidura fulvifrons Lath. (Hoiveavis 

 rufifrons kempi Mathews) is one extreme and the Rhipidura 

 dryas Gould is the other. 



Personally I think that this being the case R. fulvifrons 

 should stand for the whole series, and the interesting steps 

 in the gradual transition noted as varieties without bearing 

 any change in the scientific name. 



To illustrate a case where the trinomial system may be 

 justified, I would cite that of '■'■ Pardalotus affinis Gould-" 

 from Tasmania, which is identical with the mainland form 

 except that the tips of the primary-coverts are yellow instead 

 of red and it is a little larger bird. I have not met with 

 any intermediate forms, the replacement of the red by yellow 

 in the insular variety heing constant. Surely well-marked 

 races, and not slight gradations in general shade of colouring, 

 warrant subspecific rank ? 



I enclose a formalin specimen of Rhipidura mayi Ashby, 

 of which you can make what use you like. If not wanted, 

 please give it to the British Museum. 



Yours sincerely, 

 ''Wittunga," Edwin Ashby, M.B.O.U. 



Blackwood, South Australia. 

 28 June, 1916. 



