GKEAT-BILLED HERON. 
“ A nest and two eggs were found in the mangroves on April 15th, 1909, 
and situated in the same tree — ^in fact, on the same branch, and only some 
18 inches from the fresh nest — ^were the remains of one which had evidently 
been used the previous season. 
“ On the 15th of May, 1909, on Clairview Creek, Broad Sound, some 70 
miles to the southward of Mackay, this bird was again met with. About 
3 miles up Clairview Creek, where the mangroves are very thick, a Heron 
was flushed, but no nest found. Half-a-mile further on a pair of these birds 
were noted . . . and a nest discovered, which contained a young bird. The 
nest, like the one at O’Connell River, was very roughly built, being composed 
of dead mangrove sticks, with no lining. It appeared to be a very old nest 
which had been roughly repaired year after year. Dimension of nest — 
diameter, 44 inches ; egg cavity, 5 inches ; very flat ; depth of whole, 15 inches. 
Placed in red mangrove tree, 6 feet from the mud, and not more than 
4 feet from high-water mark.”* 
The bird figured and described is a female, collected on Bellenden Ker, 
North Queensland, by Mr. E. Olive, on December 8th, 1899, and presented 
to me by Mr. H. C. Robinson. 
This species was figured by Gould in the Birds of Australia, under the name 
Ardea rectirostris Gould, but I have shown that the bird described by Gould 
under this name was not this one but the preceding. 
In his Handbook (Vol. II., p. 296, 1865), Gould synonymised A. rectirostris 
with the prior Ardea smnatrana of Raffles, described from Sumatra {Trans. 
Linn. Soc. (Lond.), Vol. XIII., p. 325, 1821). 
In the Nov. Zool, Vol. XVIII., p. 230, 1912, I separated the North 
Queensland bird under the name Ardea suimtrarwi 'tnathewsm, giving as 
characters : “ Differs from A. s. su7natrana in its browner coloration above, 
with a bronze tinge, its longer bill and shorter tarsus.” 
I also indicated the North-western form as different, as A. s. gilherti, 
writing : “ Differs from A. s. mathewsce in its lighter coloration above.” 
I am here uniting these two forms, but later anticipate the reinstatement 
of the latter when longer series are available for study. There is no doubt 
that these birds are local in their distribution, and that subspecies are 
recognisable ; but the variation owing to sex and age is such that, unless 
many specimens are criticised, faulty conclusions are inevitable. 
* Cornwall, Emu, Vol. IX., pp. 138-141, 1910. 
VOL. in. 
421 
