THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
is not noticed, whereas “ area utrinque interoculos and basin mandibula 
superiores adhuc palbdior,” is one of the noticeable features of P. m. gouldi 
Hutton. 
This brings us down to the paper by Mr. Hull on the Birds of Lord Howe 
and Norfolk Islands {Proc. Linn. 8oc. N.S.W. 1909, Vol. XXXIV., pp. 636-693, 
1910), wherein is included (Estrelata neglecta Schlegel for the Big Hill Mutton- 
bird of Lord Howe Island, and thereunder classed the Lord Howe, Norfolk Island, 
and Kermadec Islands breeding birds, and reasons for differing from such 
classification fully given. Hull pointed out that the Lord Howe bird differed 
from any descriptions of (E. neglecta he could see, and suggested that from known 
data the Norfolk Island bird was also quite separable. I am glad to say that 
Hull’s conclusions in this matter are perfectly accurate, and that his researches 
have led to most gratifying results. 
In the succeeding volume of the Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 1910, Vol. 
XXXV., pp. 773-782, Iredale gave some notes on these birds, and on pp. 783-787 
Hull continued notes on these Petrels. Iredale’s conclusions being based on 
incorrect identifications, can now be disregarded, and I propose to review the 
same facts from the later knowledge we now possess. 
Hull’s paper however put forward many suggestions which now seem to be 
well founded. He pointed out that the burrowing habit of the Norfolk Island 
Petrel and the size of the egg obtained by Dr. Metcalfe, at once indicated the 
distinctness of (E. phillipi and (E. neglecta. He added : “ Dr. Metcalfe obtained 
two specimens of the Norfolk Island bird, one of which, I believe, was forwarded 
to Dr. Crowfoot. If the present whereabouts of either or both skins could be 
ascertained, and an examination made, I feel sure that the question would be 
set at rest.” He also stated that he could see no signs of a burrowing Petrel 
on Mount Pitt, Norfolk Island, and suggested its extermination or removal 
to some more secure breeding-place. 
He then described (Estrelata montana (p. 785) from Lord Howe Island, 
pointing out that this might be identical with (E. phillipi ^ but that the “ rusty 
black ” of Hunter was not exact, otherwise the description agreed. 
The type was kindly forwarded to me, and I agreed that it seemed quite 
distinct from anything I knew. Upon commencing to monograph this group 
I had, of course, to carefully examine and describe the unique type of 
Gould’s P. solandri. It seemed somehow familiar, but it was not until some 
time after looking at Mr. Hull’s bird, that I recognised that the two were 
identical. I had not figured the unique type of P. solandri, as it had been 
recently done in the Monograph, and I was prejudiced by the suggestion that 
it was the dark phase of some well-known species. Examination of Mr. Hull’s 
specimens dispelled that at once, and the subsequent inquiry into literature 
146 
