THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
at the base of the lower mandible and note what a difference. There is here no 
sign of feather-entrance, a clean-cut straight base-line being seen instead. 
I will discuss this under Thalassarche, but would here point out a note 
regarding the synonymy of this bird : — 
In the Monograph of the Petrels, p. 142, is the following note : “ Some writers, 
Salvin among the number, have suggested that Latham’s ‘ Kurile Petrel ’ 
{Gen. Syn. Birds, III., pt. 2, p. 399, 1785 ; und^ Procellaria cequinoctialis, 
var A., Lath., Ind. Orn. II., p. 821, 1790) is probably Puffinus carneipes. But 
in this I cannot agree, for Latham makes his bird a variety of Procellaria 
cequinoctialis, which is the well-known Majaqueus, or ‘ Cape Hen.’ If, as he 
says, his ‘ Kurile Petrel ’ is ‘ half as large again, with a strong yellow bill,’ it 
more closely resembles an Albatros, and is probably Diomedea alhatrus. In 
any case, it could hardly be Puffinus carneipes.^' 
Under Diomedea alhatrus in the Monograph^ no notice is taken of Dr. 
Godman’s own suggestion. 
Reference to Latham shows that the “ Kuril P.” is based on 
“Kuril Petrel, Arct. Zool, p. 536 A; Pall. Spic., V., p. 28.” 
Further research reveals the fact that the Arct. Zool. quotation depends entirely 
upon Pall. Spic., Vol. V., p. 28, and that is the basis of Diomedea alhatrus of 
the Monograph, p. 326, being the original description of that bird by Pallas. 
Consequently the suggestion made by the author of the Monograph is quite 
correct, and the mystery of the “Kuril Petrel” of Latham is now dissipated. 
Though Gould included D. alhatrus in his Birds of Australia, he admitted he 
only did it to show all the Albatroses and not because it was an Australian 
bird. Yet it has been since retained until the year 1910, though there were 
no grounds whatever for its acceptance. 
The characters of the biU of D. exulans have been minutely detailed 
by Coues {Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. 1866, p. 175), while the peculiar character 
of the nostril has been carefully described and skilfully figured by Forbes 
{Rep. Voy. “ Challenger;^ Zool., Vol. IV., p. 12, 1882). 
244 
