1-72 Howe, The A caiithizo' or Til-Warblers. [,-thTui 



trees, Scone, N.S.W., says :—" The description of the nest omits 

 the fact of its being fastened into the drooping twigs of the oak 

 tree. The marking of the eggs would point to the bird being 

 rather distinct from A. chrysorrhous, but the nest is constructed 

 more after the style of that bird than A. regitlotdes." 



In Acanthiza pusilla alone there has been great confusion 

 regarding forms that should rank as sub-species. Mathews, in 

 dealing with this bird, gives the habitat as South Queensland and 

 New South Wales for the dominant sub-species and the type as 

 Motacilla pusilla, White, 1790. He adds twelve sub-species. 

 Three of them — A. apicalis, A. archibaldi, and A. pyrrhopygia — 

 are given the rank of species, while A. diemenensis, A. macularia, 

 A. whitlocki, A. zietzi, and A. albiventris are listed as sub-species 

 in the R.A.O.U. "Check-list," leaving A. venits, A. arm, A. 

 consohrina, and A. katherina as Mathews's contribution. North 

 was very careful regarding sub-species, and deprecated the 

 describing of them as species ; but when perusing his work one is 

 convinced that these geographical races confused him, for he says, 

 when dealing with A. pusilla : — " A close ally of this species, A. 

 apicalis, inhabits the western portion of the continent ; speci- 

 mens examined from some parts of South Australia combine the 

 characters of both A. pusilla and ^-1. apicalis, while yel another 

 hardlv distinguishable species is found in Tasmania " (italics mine). 

 Again, after describing A. pyrrhopygia, North says : — " Dr. Sharpe, 

 who had apparently never .seen an example of A. pyrrhopygia, 

 for he transcribes Gould's description of it in his ' Catalogue of 

 Birds in the British Museum,' regards it as ' very doubtfully 

 distinct from A. apicalis,' and erroneously gives its habitat as 

 Western Australia. I feel sure, however, if Dr. Sharpe had seen a 

 specimen he would never for a moment question the validity of 

 A . pyrrhopygia. Its very pronounced rufous upper tail coverts 

 and more conspicuously white-tipped tail feathers, which have 

 also a broader blackish-brown subterminal band, will readily 

 serve to distinguish it from A. apicalis." North, in drawing 

 attention to the so-called A. pyrrhopygia from New South Wales, 

 says : — " They may readily be distinguished from specimens 

 obtained in South Australia by their larger size, rufous-chestnut 

 upper tail coverts, lighter under surface, which have only a slight 

 tinge of fulvous on the flanks, and by their white under tail 

 coverts." He named this form A. albiventris. 



Between the years 1907-13 I have spent a few weeks in Sep- 

 tember or October of every year in the Mallee, and have collected 

 the eggs of A. pusilla hamiltoni, Mathews. During September, 

 1911, Mr. F. E. Wilson and I collected skins of this race south of 

 Kow Plains, now known as Co wangle. These birds are very close 

 indeed to .4. p. apicalis, and one of them, an adult male, is much 

 lighter on the under surface. If Mathews's sub-species venus and 

 arno are intermediate, the differences must indeed be small. I 

 have often found nests oi A. p. hamiltoni in the Mallee of north- 

 west Victoria. The nest is identical with that of A. p. macularia 



