Mem. Nat. Mus. Vict., viii, 1934. 
A REVISION OE THE GENUS MALURUS 
By George Mack, National Museum. 
The genus Malurus is confined to Australia, Tasmania, and 
some small adjacent islands. Probably in no other group is 
distribution so complete, at least one species being present in 
every part of the continent. The bright and beautifully 
plumaged males attract attention equally in the temperate 
south, the dry interior, and the tropical north. 
This paper is based chiefly upon the excellent series in the 
H. L. White collection in the National Museum, augmented by 
the museum general collection. For substantial additional 
representatives of four species I am indebted to the Australian 
Museum, Sydney, and the South Australian Museum, Adelaide, 
lo the Directors and officers responsible for the bird section of 
these two museums I owe my warmest thanks. The late Dr. 
William Macgillivray, of Broken Hill, kindly forwarded all his 
specimens of two northern species. 
A typical male and female of each species are described, 
standard colour terms, from Ridgway’s Color Standards and 
Nomenclature, being used ; all measurements are in millimetres. 
Maps are included on which is outlined the range of the various 
forms. 
Genus MALURUS Vieillot. 
Malurus Vieillot, Analyse nouv. Ornith., p. 44, 1816. Type, Motacilla 
cyanea Latham. 
Leggeornis Mathews, Aust. Avian Rec., 1 , p. 113, 1912. Type, Malurus 
lamberti Vigors and Horsfield. 
Of the thirteen species included here, four differ from the 
genotype in lacking prominent, erectile ear-coverts, and in the 
widely different colour-pattern of their plumage ; three of these 
four species are similar in size and are the smallest of the genus, 
while the fourth is the largest. These differences are here 
recognised by accepting three subgenera (Malurus, Hallornis, 
and Rosina) containing nine, three and one species respectively. 
Structure of bill and feet, and the wing formula are similar in 
all species. Rictal bristles are five in number and vary in 
length roughly in proportion to the size of the bird. Some 
cabinet specimens have less than the proper number of bristles 
since these are easily lost in preparing skins. This fact appears 
to have misled Mathews, for in five of the six genera accepted 
[100] 
