Vol. xxxvii.] 18 



tenable. I do not wish to criticize Mr. Mathews's recent 

 remarks, but leave it to others to decide which of us lias 

 better understood these forms, especially as it is very- 

 difficult to discuss these questions, because Mr. Mathews 

 does not explain on what material he based liis ideas, while 

 we liave clearly stated on what we worked. There is, how- 

 ever, one point I wish to remark upon. In his No. 32S, 

 under the heading called Megastrix tenebricosa (under the 

 plate it is M. multipunctata) ■^, the author declares that we 

 did not know Schlegel's " Strix arfaki,'^ and that our birds 

 from S.E. New Guinea must be separated from the latter 

 because they do not agree with the description and are 

 therefore " atypical,'-* and because they were collected over 

 a thousand miles from Arfak. He calls the bird from 

 British New Guinea " perconfusa," evidently meaning to 

 imply that we had thoroughly confounded it. In my 

 opinion this name must be added to the synonyms, and 

 is, therefore, quite appropriate, though in another sense. 

 There is, in my opinion, nothing in SchlegeFs description 

 that need be objected to as not fitting the south-eastern 

 birds. He separated his single specimen because he found 

 it to be smaller than some Australian examples, the white 

 spots " larger and more regular orbicular,''' and " the light 

 sootj^-browu colour of the face strongly inclined to white." 

 The first supposed difference is evidently due to the type 

 being a male, while the Australian ones appear to have been 

 females. Tlie wing of the type-specimen is said to measure 

 2Vd mm., i. e. only 13 mm, less than in our south-eastern 

 males ; the size of the white spots and the amount of white 

 in the face are quite variable. Salvadori measures the wing 

 of an Arfak specimen with 280 mm. Last, but not least, 

 we have two skins of the typical Arfak preparation, bought 

 irora Mr. van Duivenbode, unfortunately, by an oversiglit, 

 not mentioned in our list of Pajiuan birds. These agree 



* There is in that number, it seems, only one plate on which the name 

 agrees with that used in the text, and a similar confusion prevails in 

 uiany other portions of tliis, in many w.iys, admirable work. 



