THE BIRDS OF • AUSTRALIA. 
Coues noted that the Falkland Islands Skua had b^n separated by 
Lesson, and concluded that it seemed so similar that he was doubtful of 
recognising it. He however noted that some specimens (exact locality 
unknown) from the Southern Ocean were much larger and more uniformly 
darker, and somewhat iUogicaUy suggested that they might become larger and 
darker with age and that these very large birds were simply senile specimens. 
I have termed this remark “ illogical,” as he knew the Northern Skua — 
which he considered identical — became lighter with age and certainly not 
abnormally larger. 
In the Bull. U.8. Nat. Mus., No. 2, p. 9, 1875, he called the Southern Skua 
Buphagus skua antarcticus. 
The following year Saunders revised the group {Proc. Zool. Soc. (Lond.) 
1876, pp. 317-332), and with the thoroughness that characterises aU his early 
papers on the Larifonnes, carefully discussed aU the questions raised by Coues, 
but coincident with the peculiar views at that time held by working British 
ornithologists, failed to foUow up his reasoning to its logical conclusions. Thus, 
Coues had acknowledged two genera and had relegated S. pomarinus to that 
containing the “ Jaegers,” observing that though this bird was somewhat 
intermediate in its features, it could not be reckoned as a li nk connecting the 
two genera. 
Gray, in his Handlist^ included aU in the one genus but recognised three 
subgenera, giving the Pomarine Skua subgeneric rank equal with the Skuas 
and “ Jaegers.” 
Saunders used one genus for aU the Skuas, but wrote : “ Nor do there 
appear to be any sufficient structural differences to warrant the generic 
separation of the Great Skuas from the other species, the Pomatorhine Skua 
forming such a connecting link between the heavy and the elegant forms as 
to preclude any consistent separation, unless Reichenbach’s genus Coprotheres 
be also accepted for the Pomatorhine.” 
I have adopted the consistent attitude here indicated, but not followed, 
by Saunders : the latter admitted three species of Great Skuas, catarractes 
Linne, 1766 (rejecting skua Brunnich, 1764, as pre-Linnean), antarctica Lesson, 
and chilensis Bonaparte. 
Regarding the Southern forms, he wrote : — 
It seems to me that only the want of a sufficient series of both species for comparison 
can ever have led to their being united ; for undoubtedly the distinctness of many other 
birds as species is imhesitatingly acknowledged on much lighter grounds. In the examin - 
ation of a large series I have never met with any Northern Skua with the stout deep bill 
with its well-marked angle at the gonys which invariably characterises the southern bird ; 
and if mere colour is taken into consideration, the total absence of rufous both on the 
under -parts, the axiUaries and the under wing -coverts serves to distinguish the Antarctic 
Skua at a glance. But whilst perfectly distinguishable from S. catarrhuctes, it presents 
490 
