SILVER GULL. 
confuse the issues somewhat. I have given Bonaparte’s description of his 
G, gouldi under the subspecies known by that name. 
In Naumannia, 1854, p. 216, Bonaparte also named a G. corallinus 
“ a cause de son bee encore plus eclatant que dans les plus beaux de ses 
congeneres.” 
I consider this a nude name only, but it was described in the Consp. Gen. 
Av.f Vol. II., p. 228, 1857, under Bruchigavia thus : — 
? G. corallinus Bp., Mus. Paris a Castelnau et Collect. Bailloni et Delamottii Abbatis- 
villae, ex Brasil. 
Albus ; subtus evanide rosaceus ; pallio dilute griseo-canescente ; remigibus nigris, 
ad basin et macula subapicali maxima, albis ; rostros robustiore, valde angulato, 
ruberrimo-corallino. Juv rostro minus angulato, pallide cinereo. 
Under the next form I show how Schlegel confused the new Zealand and 
Australian forms, and proposed to call the North Australian and New 
Caledonia birds Larus scopulinus major. 
Masters, in 1877, separated the western form as B. longirostris, and Ramsay 
accepted this, including three forms, though Gould in his Handbook had only 
admitted two, while in his Birds of Australia only one was recognised. 
Saunders, in the Cat. Birds Brit. Mus., lumped them into one again, though 
quite wrongly, as I shall point out, in the case of B. longirostris Masters : 
Saunders there included in the synonymy of Larus novoe-hollandice, Gavia 
andersonii Bruch, Gavia pomare Bruch 1853, and G. corallinus Bonaparte, 
from examination of types. 
He wrote : “In less mature but undoubtedly breeding birds the mirrors 
on the 1st and 2nd quills are smaller while there is no mirror and little 
basal white on the 3rd; but there is every intermediate stage between the 
extremes mentioned,” and gave cuts of the three first primaries of 
L. novce-hollandice (ad.), p. 236, L. scopulinus (ad. and juv.), p. 239, and 
L. hartlaubi (ad.), p. 240. 
Saunders did not recognise subspecies, though he generally noted the 
diagnostic features of the recognisable races ; but in this instance he had not 
sufficient material to separate the Australian forms, yet recognised the New 
Zealand one on the slightest of grounds. There is much more variation in the 
primary-mirrors between the Cape York and Tasmanian birds than there is 
between the Cape York and New Zealand specimens. It seems certain, as 
Saunders concluded, that each moult for the first few (? how many) the mirrors 
increase in size, but it is also absolutely certain that in different localities they 
do not increase at the same rate, and to the same extent. After examination 
of a large number of specimens and tabulation of primary-mirrors, I found 
that the mirror on the third primary was diagnostic, and I separated the 
455 
