THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
Ornithologists’ Union. But these do not agree with Coues’s very good descrip- 
tion, whereas Townsend’s Clarion Island bird does fully agree. Note that the 
Monterey bird was used by Townsend as P. opistho7nelas when he differentiated 
his P. auricularis. 
Firstly, Coues’ detailed description of the bill of his species agrees with 
the Clarion Island bird, and not with the Monterey one. Coues wrote : “ The 
nasal tubes are large and prominent, and rather long for this group, being more 
than a fourth of the culmen.” This is true of the Clarion Island bird, not of the 
Monterey bird. Coues wrote : “ The entire upper parts, the wings and tail, are 
of exactly the same shade of sooty black as obtains in obscurus.’’ This is true 
of the Clarion Island bird, but not of the Monterey one ; moreover, “ sooty black ” 
would scarcely be used for the latter bird, and certainly not by Coues, who was 
very careful in his colour- values when dealing with this group. All the succeeding 
details given by Coues confirm the above : “ there is no white on either eyelid ” ; 
“ the bend of the wing rather more decidedly mottled with the colour of the 
back ” ; “ the axillary feathers are more or less blackish towards the ends instead 
of being pure white.” “ These [under tail-coverts] feathers are entirely of a 
deep fuhginous black.” “ Bill along culmen 1.40 ; wing about 9.00 ; tarsus 
1.80 ; mid-toe and claw 2.10.” 
Godman notes {Monograph of the Petrels^ p. 112) : “ In a pair of birds 
from Clarion Island, the axillaries, though white, have subterminal black 
spots.” “ Culmen ; 1.35 ; wing 9.0-9.2 ; tarsus 1.80 ; mid-toe 2.0.” 
From the above the only conclusion possible is that P. auricularis Townsend 
is the same as P. opisthomelas Coues ; and, confirming this conclusion, I find 
the following note by Anthony {Auh, Yo\. XVII., p. 249, 1900) : “About Cape 
St. Lucas Townsend’s Shearwater {Puffinus auricularis) is rather common.” 
Since the preceding was written further research supports my views : the 
figure given in the Monograph of the Petrels purporting to represent Puffinus 
opisthojnelas did not appear to have been made from a specimen of the 
Monterey bird, although on p. Ill was written, “The figure in the Plate has 
been drawn from one of the above specimens ” ; the specimens indicated are 
in the British Museum, and the figure obviously disagreed. The reason for 
the disagreement is explained by the following note by Buffer {Birds New 
Zealand, 2nd ed., p. 236, 1888) : “ Mr. Salvin has shown me a careful drawing 
by Keulemans from the type of P. opisthonnelas (obtained off the coast of 
Lower California) which was sent over from the Smithsonian Institute for the 
purpose of being figured in his forthcoming ‘ Monograph.’ ” 
The misstatement in the Monograph is due to the fact that Salvin left 
few notes regarding the birds from which figures were prepared by Keulemans. 
Elliot in the Introduction to his Birds North Ainerica, Vol. I., 1869, gives 
66 
