THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
Mandihula superior supra rimam cutaceam lateralem e nigro-cornea, inferne autem & sub 
tubo narium cereo-albida 
Tubus narium tertiam partem rostri non penitus adtingens, nigricans, supra convexus, 
bilocularis 
Dissepimentum parum retusum 
Apertura' obovata', superne angustiores 
Mandihula inferior e plumbeo-albida, rima longitudinali, cutacea, nigricante 
Oculi nigricantes 
Pedes & Digiti albidi, extus parum e fusco glauci 
Palma tota albida, margins parum fuscata 
Ungues lanceolati, extus nigricantes, basi albidi 
Loco digiti postici, Unguis sessilis, albidus, apice nigricans 
Longitude ab apice ad finem cauda' 20 1 
inter apices alarum expans. 49 / 
Pondus 2 libr. 5 unc. 
It is interesting to contrast these most beautiful, detailed, and accurate 
descriptions of Solander and Forster with the well-meant but almost useless 
ones given by Latham. In all of these Solander diagnoses, the facts are carefully 
and correctly placed in such a manner that I can scarcely meet with any doubts 
in determining them absolutely. I would also point out that the drawing made 
by Ellis on the third voyage. No. 41, is a good representation of this species, 
and though it was said to be ascribed to Diomedea by Salvin, Cat. Birds. Brit. 
Mus., Vol. XXV., p. 441, by Sharpe {Hist. Coll. Brit. Mus., Vol. II., p. 203), 
Salvin at the place quoted does not mention it. The bill is carefully drawn, 
and immediately forbids the attachment to Diomedea. The mistake is the 
more incomprehensible when we see among these Ellis drawings, beautiful 
detailed figures, almost life-size, of the bills of Macronectes and Diomedea, 
showing that the artist was fully aware of the peculiarities of the bill- 
formation of these different genera of Petrels. 
I have noted the discrepancy between the descriptions given by Bonaparte 
in the Consp. Gen. Av. and the synonymy offered relating to Nectris gama, and 
here again, regarding his Adamastor typus (p. 187), we meet with such. The 
synonymy concludes with “ ex Mar. antarcticis, Australia ” ; then follows, 
“Mus. Lugdun. et Paris, a Nebouxio, ex Mar. cequatorial,’’^ while “rostro 
nigricante, lateribus et apice fiavidis, pedibus flavicantibus,” seems to agree 
with this bird, though what “ Juv. capite dilutiore, maculis tantum 
fuscentibus,” may refer to cannot be decided. 
I have pointed out above that Darwin’s P. cinerea is not this bird, but 
refers to Puffinus griseus (Gmelin), and therefore the description of the soft 
parts given in the Monograph (p. 160) ex that source should be removed to 
the latter bird. 
124 
