The Emu. 
153 
to the original drawing and description in the " Zoology and 
Atlas of the Voyage de I'Uranie," he finds "that Gould had 
good grounds for doubting if the bird figured and described by 
him under this name in his ' Birds of Australia ' was not 
distinct from the species to which it had been originally applied 
by Quoy and Gaimard," and after quoting the description given 
by the last-named naturalists, says : — " The above diagnosis and 
description clearly do not apply to the cobalt-blue bird from 
New South Wales figured and described by Gould, and which 
in future will have to be distinguished under the name of 
Malurus cyanotus." Since writing the foregoing Mr. North 
had received a photograph of three specimens (as set up) of the 
bird collected by Mr. J. T. Tunney on Barrow Island, N.W. 
Australia, for the Western Australian Museum, and which has 
been named M. edouardi. Concerning these, he says : — 
" Judging by the description and photograph, these birds are, in 
my opinion, the true Malurus leucopierus of Quoy and Gaimard 
described 77 years ago." It will be remembered that these 
three specimens from Barrow Island were exhibited on nth 
March, 1901, at a meeting of the Field Naturalists' Club of 
Victoria by Mr. A. J. Campbell, who described them * and 
suggested the new name, and that a photo, from Arago's 
original drawing of M. leucopterus accompanied one of M. 
edouardi on p. 66 of The Emu. It had been previously stated 
(p. 26) that should the black and white Wrens of Barrow and 
Dirk Hartog Islands eventually prove the same species, 
Gould's long-standing provisional name of M. cyanotus would 
become the proper one for the blue and white bird. Reference 
to the photographs will show that there are marked points of 
distinction between Quoy and Gaimard's M. leucopterus and 
M. edouardi, and that it requires some imagination to regard 
them as identical, the more particularly as the measurements 
given in the " Voyage de I'Uranie " for M. leucopterus are 3 
inches 4 lines (not " about 4^ inches," as the paper under notice 
might lead one to believe), whilst the total lengths of the 
specimens of M. edoiMrdi exhibited in Melbourne were 4.5, 4.5, 
and 4.75 inches respectively. Is it not, therefore, extremely 
probable that Mr. North has been somehow led astray ? Possibly 
not having the birds themselves to examine has been a cause of 
error, and when specimens of both are before him he will 
possibly reconsider his present decision. In any case, perhaps, 
it is unfortunate that Mr. North did not give his opinion that 
Gould's blue and white bird could not refer to Quoy and 
Gaimard's ancient figure, and that the name M. cyanotus must 
be adopted for the former, before the last-found black and 
white Wren came on the tapis. To be wise after events is 
like the story of " Columbus and the Egg." 
* Vict. Nat., xvii., p. 203. 
