EASTERN BUSTARD. 
Open Bay ”]. All or most of the same sort of Land and Water fowl as we 
saw at Botany Harbour we saw here ; besides these we saw some Bustards, 
such as we have in England, one of which we kill’d that weighed 17 J pounds, 
which occasioned my giving this place the name of Bustard Bay (Lat. 24° 4', 
Long. 208° 22' W.).” 
When Iredale wrote about “ Solander as an Ornithologist ” {Ihis 1913, 
pp. 127-135), he recorded (p. 133) : “ In the first place I was struck by 
the fact that no land birds were described, save such as flew on board the 
ship ... I have stated I could trace none, and I do not think any 
were preserved. I believe that the descriptions and figures were considered 
sufficient and that after these were made the birds were consigned to 
the poV^ 
Recently re-examining the Solander Manuscript I noted this bird 
formed an exception to the first statement made by Iredale while it confirmed 
the second : for Solander has fully described the specimen above noted, the 
only land-bird that did not fly on board ship, and we are definitely told that 
the bird was eaten. 
I am now investigating, but it would appear that this was the first 
endemic Australian bird to be technically described, though the description 
was not published. 
Flinders, in his Voyage to Terra Australis^ Vol. II., often alludes to it 
(p. 30) : “ Several bustards were seen near Cape Keppel ” ; (p. 145) 
Wellesley Islands, November, 1802 — “ We saw neither quadruped nor reptile 
upon the islands. Birds were rather numerous ; the most useful of them 
were ducks of several species, and bustards ; and one of these last, shot by 
Mr. Bauer, weighed between ten and twelve pounds, and made us an excellent 
dinner. The flesh of this bird is distributed in a manner directly contrary 
to that of the domestic turkey, the white meat being upon the legs, and the 
black upon the breast”; (p. 171) PeUew Group, December, 1802 — “In 
the woods were hawks, pigeons of two kinds, and some bustards.” 
In view of these notices published in 1814 it is remarkable that Gould 
should have described it as new as late as 1841 and it is still more peculiar 
that he was only twelve years too late, and that it was described for the first 
time by Gray in 1829, almost sixty years after it was first met with. 
367 
