TASMANIAN SILVER GULL. 
while, and then settle down on the rocks close at hand with comparative 
unconcern.” 
Mr. Stuart Dove tells me : “ On I6th May, near mouth of Mersey River 
here, a number of Silver Gulls were rising straight up into the air, then dashing 
down again, stopping before reaching the water (they were standing in an 
inch or two of water at the edge of a sand bank) and then rising again, and 
making a terrific noise, seemingly all in pure frolic, as the Magpies {Gymnorhina) 
will rise up and tumble about in the air in fine spring afternoons, especially 
when a strong breeze obtains. For the Gulls to play in this manner is, as far 
as my observations go, unusual.” 
Mr. J. M’Clymont* says he saw one of these birds “ feeding on smaU crabs, 
which were swallowed whole. It obtained them in shallow water, either by 
dipping its head into the water, or by jumping out of the water, and taking 
a little dive. As is the case every winter, many Seagulls visited the grass 
fields, but this did not occur in stormy weather only. Thus on the 10th of 
July about 100 Seagulls appeared in a field on a fine morning with a gentle, 
southerly breeze blowing. Adolescent birds, having the wing coverts more 
or less speckled with stone colour, accompanied the adults, but were fewer 
in number than these.” 
The figure given shows the great difference between this and other forms 
of B. novcB-hollandice in the primary-coloration. The explanation may be 
that the Tasmanian birds I have examined all belong to the “freshwater” 
bird recorded above by Legge. It should be noted that Legge was at a loss 
to name this bird, and sent specimens to Saunders, at that time the great 
authority on GuUs, for identification, asking if they were referable to 
L. scopulinus as they certainly did not agree with normal L. novoe-hollandice. 
Saunders however lumped them in with the latter, though they seemed so 
different, and moreover apparently fixed the variation as being local, as 
upon a bird without locality he has written, “ Probably Tasmanian,” the 
only reason for such conclusion being the very white primaries as contrasted 
with other Australian specimens. There is here a most delightful opportunity 
for Tasmanian ornithologists to work out the distribution of B. n. gunni, and 
also decide whether it is the inland-breeding form and is represented by another 
form on the sea-rocks. As a parallel case may be cited the New Zealand 
B. bulleri which, breeding inland, as specifically distinct from the seashore 
B. n. scopulinus ; whether it is derived from B. novce-hollandice it seems now 
impossible to decide without careful study of the juvenile stages — it is so 
different in the adult stages. A casual glance at B. n. gunni at once recalls 
B. bulleri in the primary-coloration, though otherwise not comparable. 
* Emu, Vol. V., p. 162, 1906. 
465 
