XXXVU1 
APPENDIX. 
Add — 1 * Chlamydodera cerviniventris. 
Chlamydodera cerviniventris, Meyer, Abhandl. k. zool. Mus. Dresden, vii. no. 2, p. 55 (1898). — Sharpe, Monogr. 
Parad. part viii. (1898). 
Chlamydera cerviniventris, Rothschild, Thierreich, Lief. 2, Parad. p. 9 (1898). 
Chlamydodera recondita, Meyer, Abhandl. k. zool. Mus. Dresden, vii. no. 2, p. 55. — Sharpe, Monogr. Parad. 
part viii. (1898). 
Dr. Meyer now believes that the egg on which he founded his C. recondita , though somewhat 
aberrant in colour, is really that of C. cerviniventris, and so the identity of C. recondita and C. lauterbachi is 
no longer in question. ' 
... 2. Chlamydodera maculata. 
Add ; — 
Chlamydodera maculata, Meyer, Abhandl. k. zool. Mus. Dresden, vii. no. 2, p. 54 (1898). — Sharpe, Monogr- 
Parad. part viii. (1898). 
Chlamydera maculata, Rothschild, Thierreich, Lief. 2, Parad. p. 9 (1898). 
. _ , 3. Chlamydodera occipitalis. 
Add: — 
Chlamydodera occipitalis, Sharpe, Bull. Brit. Orn. Club, iv. p. xiv (1894). — Id. Monogr. Parad. part iii. (1894). — 
Meyer, Abhandl. k. zool. Mus. Dresden, vii. no. 2, p. 54 (1898). 
Chlamydera maculata, pt., Rothschild, Thierreich, Lief. 2, Parad. p. 9 (1898). 
The Hon. Walter Rothschild has united this species to C. maculata, as I did myself in the ‘ Catalogue of 
Birds.’ Now that the range of C. maculata is known to extend to Cape York, there is nothing wonderful in 
the occurrence of the species at Port Albany, and I am quite prepared to accept the identity of C. occipitalis 
and C. maculata. Gould was always very emphatic as to my having made a mistake in uniting the two 
species, and as his judgment on the questions of Australian birds was always worthy of consideration, 
I preferred to consider C. occipitalis distinct, influenced also perhaps, as Mr. Rothschild suggests, by a 
desire to “ bring in Gould’s very beautiful original plate.” I now believe that C. occipitalis is nothing- 
more than a finely plumaged male of C. maculata, as Dr. Ramsay long ago suggested. 
. , . 4. Chlamydodera guttata. 
Add : — 
Chlamydodera guttata, Meyer, Abhandl. k. zool. Mus. Dresden, vii.no. 2, p. 54 (1898). — Sharpe, Monogr. Parad. 
part viii. (1898). 
Chlamydera guttata, Rothschild, Thierreich, Lief. 2, Parad. p. 10 (1898). 
. , , 5. Chlamydodera nuchalis. 
Add : — 
Chlamydodera nuchalis, Meyer, Abhandl. k. zool. Mus. Dresden, vii. no. 2, p. 54 (1898). — Sharpe, Monogr. Parad. 
part viii. (1898). 
Chlamydera nuchalis, Rothschild, Novit. Zool. v. p. 86(1898). — Id. Thierreich, Lief. 2, Parad. p. 10 (1898). 
. . , 6. Chlamydodera orientalis. 
Add ; — 
Chlamydodera orientalis, Sharpe, Monogr. Parad. part i. (1891).- — Id. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club, iv. p. xiv (1894). — 
Meyer, Abhandl. k. zool. Mus. Dresden, vii. no. 2, p. 54 (1898). 
Chlamydera orientalis, Rothschild, Novit. Zool. v. p. 86 (1898). 
Chlamydera nuchalis, Rothschild, Thierreich, lief. 2, Parad. p. 10 (1898). 
The Hon. Walter Rothschild does not recognize this species as distinct from C. nuchalis, as he says that 
“ in the British Museum there are examples of both forms, together with a specimen almost intermediate, all 
from one and the same locality.” Although there is an approach to C. nuchalis in some specimens, I think 
the two forms can be fairly well divided. 
