70 Reviews. [.sf'juiy 



monument has been left — a reference for all time. No doubt 

 the Government of the day will extend the same courtesy to the 

 Australasian Ornithologists' Union, as it hopes to organize an 

 expedition (composed of Australian and New Zealand members) 

 to explore more ornithologically the romantic southern islands 

 of New Zealand, of the avifauna of which, as Mr. Waite has 

 informed us, our knowledge is yet "very inadequate." 



Correspondence. 



BIRDS OF THE EAST MURCIIISON, W.A. 



To the Editors of " TJie Emu!' 



Sirs, — In the April issue of TJie Emu, Mr. Whitlock, in his 

 East Murchison notes, mentions my name in a way which calls 

 for some comment on my part. 



With regard to Mr. North's " record,"* to some particulars in 

 which Mr, Whitlock takes exception, this certainly needs a little 

 explanation from me. As to the dates, these, probably owing in 

 the first place to carelessness on my part, have got somewhat 

 mixed. On 13th June, 1908, I took nest and eggs of Cindosoma 

 marginatum at Wiluna; the nests taken on 30th August and 

 1st September of same year were those of C. casta7ionotum, and 

 were taken about 80 miles east of Kalgoorlie, while on the 

 Transcontinental Railway survey, as Mr. Whitlock points out ; 

 how I came to mix these up with C. margiuatum I don't 

 know. The " record " also mentions another set of C. margina- 

 tum taken by me on 19th August, 1906. This is correct, but 

 the locality given is wrong. " Lake VVay, W.A., " should read 

 " Mt. Ida, W.A." 



The delay in the publication of this " record " was practically 

 all my fault, as Mr. North had repeatedly written to me for the 

 particulars about the skin and also for the eggs for description. 

 What I take exception to in Mr. Whitlock's article is his direct 

 assumption that I am incapable of taking off a skin well enough 

 for descriptive purposes, and that the skin sent by me to Mr. 

 North from Wiluna was too mutilated for description. I quite 

 agree with Mr. Whitlock in his remarks about the tenderness of 

 the skin, but I maintain that the skin I sent was good enough 

 for the purpose for which it was intended. However, Mr. 

 Whitlock's statements are, in my opinion, more excusable than 

 those of the editors of The Emu, contained in a footnote to the 

 article under discussion ; in this footnote the editors not only 

 directly support the assumption that my skin was too mutilated 

 for description, but also, without justification, directly accuse 

 Mr. North of injustice to another collector. 



* "Records of the Australian Museum," vol. vii. (1909), pp. 322-324. — Eds. 



