Vol. XVII 



191S 



1 Correspondence. 157 



However, is it not almost an ornithological axiom that two sitbs 

 of the same species cannot exist, much less breed together, in the 

 same locality or region ? Either they are the same species, or, 

 if there be difference, then it is specific, not sub-specific. — I am, &c., 



A. J. CAMPBELL. 

 Surrey Hills (Vic), 18/10/17. 



To the Editors of " The Emu." 



Sirs, — Re your footnote, " Why this licensed slaughter ? " 

 {Emu, vol. xvii., ]). 109). It seems that the Acclimatization 

 Society, having introduced game birds, notably Quail and Pheasants, 

 felt bound to protect them in the interests of sportsmen. As Circus 

 S.ouldi is plentiful, and almost the chief enemy of the game birds 

 aforesaid, there is a bounty on their destruction. For a few months 

 lately the Hawks were protected, at the instance of some farmers 

 whose grass-seed suffered at the hands of the Quail, but the 

 society was successful in getting the protection removed — in 

 part, at least. 



T. J. ICK-HEWINS. 

 Taranaki, N.Z., 18/11/17. 



To the Editors of " The Emu." 



Sirs, — In the July Emu (vol. xvii., pp. 2-38, 1917) there has 

 appeared an excellent essay on the " Birds of the Rockingham 

 Bay District, North Queensland," by Messrs. A. J. Campbell 

 and H. G. Barnard. Numerous papers of a similar character are 

 necessary, and are urgently desired by systematic workers on 

 this side of the world as well as in Australia. Too many cannot 

 be written, and it is to encourage such that I forward this com- 

 mentary on that essay. Questions are constantly put forward 

 which I am desirous of answering, as they show an imperfect 

 knowledge of some important items in bird study and record. 

 To answer these seriatim would occupy a lot of space and make 

 this letter appear controversial, which is exactly what it must 

 not do. I have no desire to enter into controversy, but am most 

 delighted to explain items which have apparently puzzled the 

 authors, but which are capable of easy and satisfactory explana- 

 tion. I had elsewhere written that nomenclatural friction has 

 been completely dissipated, and it is gratifying to find my con- 

 clusions so amply confirmed in this essa3% for, notwithstanding 

 the apparent discrepancies, the whole tenor of the paper justifies 

 my actions. 



The main point in the paper is concisely summed up b}^ the 

 authors themselves on page 37. " The questions, then, are, what 

 constitutes a species and what a sub-species ? The Check-list 

 Committee of the R.A.O.L'. would do well to settle these questions 

 before attempting to wade into the technicalities of nomen- 



