AUSTRALIAN SKUA. 
Nares antice valde aperta' 
Pedes aterrimi ; sa'pe et forte casu maculis paucis ina'qualibiis irregularibus albis 
bine inde adspersis 
Obs. Tibia' antice parum cinerascentes, forte e tritura, 
Ungues (etjam PoUici) nigri, adunci, acutissimi, 
Digiti interioris maxime arcuatus 
exterioris intermedio arcuatior 
Nostra avis (Australia') in omnibus convenit descriptionibus Clusii, WiUughba'i & Raji 
excepto colore in eorum dilutiore magisque testaceo 
Certe distincta species a Laro Catarracte Linn, et ceterorum Auctorum (exceptis citatis) 
quorum synonyma in Linn Syst nat p. 226, 11 enumerantur, ob colerem pedum, 
et forte unguibus etc. 
Longitudo ab apice rostri ad extr. cauda' ... 
24 \ 
utriusque ala' expansa' ... 
54 
Ala' singula' 
Cauda' 
24 1 
6 
Rostri (ad rictum oris) ... 
21 
Latitudo Alarum (ubi remiges secundaria ;) 
8 
Pondus 3 libr. 10 unc. 
It will be seen that Solander separated the Australian bird from Linne’s 
Larus catarractes, but accepted it as being the same as the Skua Gull of 
Pennant, yet even then noted colour differences. 
The forms of the genus Catharacta as here restricted make a most 
interesting study. I have written about the use of Catharacta as the genus- 
name in the Nov. ZooL, Vol. XVII., p. 498, 1910, and would here point out 
that under the International Rules Catharacta must be made use of whether 
the illegal Brissonian names be utilised or not. 
This Family has really only had two reviewers — Cones in 1863, and 
Saunders in 1876 and 1896. 
In the first-mentioned review {Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 1863, pp. 121- 
138), Coues used as the generic names Buphagus Moehring, 1752, for these 
Skuas, and Stercorarius Brisson, 1760, for the lesser Skuas, or Jaegers as the 
Americans call them. 
Coues’s argument for the use of Moehring’s names was simple : they were 
in the same category as those of Brisson, and the rejection of the latter being 
apparently impossible, the acceptance of the former was the logical sequence. 
Moehring’s genera were published in 1752, and consequently are invalid as 
being pre-Linnean ; a reprint of Moehring appeared in 1758, and this^ has 
been rejected as having no status. The Brissonian “ genera ” are, according 
to the International Laws, inadmissible, though most ornithologists appear 
to consider a breach of the Laws in this direction as of little consequence, 
instead of regarding it a dangerous precedent. 
I have determined to abide by the Laws, and until those are altered 
I have no alternative but to ignore Brisson’s genera entirely. 
489 
