RUFOUS-TAILED MOOR-HEN. 
This is another instance where the lumping of two forms, when adopted in 
the Gat. B. Brit. Mus. (XXIII., p. 153 (1894) ), has been followed by all 
recent Australian ornithological writers. 
Wallace described G. moluccana from Ternate, and with it Sharpe 
synonymised Gould’s G. ruficrissa from Queensland. Australian ornithologists 
not having the opportunity of checking such attachments for want of specimens 
from other countries, have been in most cases compelled to accept the dicta of 
their better situated colleagues. In this case the Queensland bird cannot be 
confused with any other of the subspecies of G. 7noluccana when placed alongside 
them, but Sharpe had only one Australian skin, and was therefore not in a 
position to judge if the differences, which he probably noticed, were more 
than individual. 
Upon comparing Australian specimens with a typical specimen (if not the 
type) collected by Wallace himself, the former are characterised by their shorter 
bills, shorter tarsi, and much warmer coloration above. Birds from New Britain 
agree with the Queensland bird in the shortness of their toes and tarsi, but are 
quite different in coloration, being colder in tone than the typical form. 
In the Notes, Leyden Mus., I., p. 163 (1879), Schlegel proposed to name a 
wholly brown bird from N.E. New Guinea, GalUnula franicii. This would appear 
to be the immature plumage of this species, as specimens from New Britain 
in the Rothschild Museum, Tring, have the grey under-surface showing the 
brown tips. This would be an interesting point for Australian ornithologists 
to clear up, as the immature plumage of G. ruficrissa appears to be undescribed. 
As Schlegel’s bird was of unknown locality, received via N.E. New Guinea, it 
is very probable that it was obtained on New Britain, and it would be better 
to use his name for that subspecies than to propose a new one. 
I have no notes on the life-history of this bird. The specimen figured and 
described is a female, collected in Queensland. 
Mr. H. G. Barnard, writing in the Emu'^ on the birds of Cape York, says he 
found the eggs of Baltina tricolor, which were white. If this be correct, it upsets 
the observations of aU Australian oologists. Broadbent collected eggs of this 
species in January, 1889, on the Murray River, North Queensland. These eggs, 
now in the Brisbane Museum, were described by Mr. A. J. Campbell.t ' 
Mr. Barnard further says : “I am satisfied that further search will prove 
that the spotted eggs hitherto attributed to Baltina tricolor, really belong to the 
second Rail, which I suppose to be the Rufous-tailed Moor-hen.” 
If so, the eggs described by me {ante, p. 204) are those of GalUnula moluccana 
ruficrissa, and the eggs of Eulabeornis tricolor rohinsoni are : Clutch four ; glossy 
white. Axis 40 — 38.5 mm. ; diameter 30 — 28.5. 
* XL, p. 19 (1911). f Emu, X., p. 244 (1910). 
235 
