THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
In the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum this bird is called 
Suh, cyanops, as of SundevaU 1837. 
A footnote reads : “ The description of S. dactylatra given by Lesson 
is unrecognisable.” This footnote referred to the citation; *^Sula dactylatra 
Less., ‘ Voy. CoquiUe,’ Vol. I., p. 494, 1826,” a second quotation reading : 
“ id. Traite d’Orn., p. 601, 1831.” I investigated this matter and my 
results were given in the Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 9, 1911, where I 
commented : “ This remark (^.e. the footnote above quoted) may be 
applicable to the note given in the ‘ Voy. CoquiUe,’ but certainly not to the 
account in the Traite, which fixes the species as the bird called cyanops by 
SundevaU six years later. It appears probable that the Australian bird wiU 
bear the name given to it by Gould, viz., per sonata, but I have not yet 
sufficient material to decide.” 
Though giving the species a range “ Tropical seas throughout the 
world,” no subspecies were admitted by Ogilvie-Grant. He, however, gave 
a footnote (p. 431) : “ Judging from the descriptions published by various 
authors the colours of the soft parts in 8 . cyanops vary greatly.” My own 
investigations into the records tend to show that the variation is due to 
locality, while the Norfolk Island birds seem to be larger than typical East 
Australian birds, while Atlantic birds, which are typical dactylatra, are smaller 
throughout. Hence I preserve Gould’s specific name in a sub-specific 
sense for the Australian birds and will leave those from Norfolk Island 
to a later date. I refrain from giving measurements, as these vary 
according to the methods used by different individuals, but if these are 
taken correctly, my conclusions wiU be found to be accurate; the meta- 
tarsus and culmen shows the greatest discrepancies, being notably less in 
the Atlantic bird. 
The bird figured and described is a male, collected on Bedout Island, Mid- 
west Australia, on the 24th of May, 1901. 
While the preceding was in the printers’ hands, a review of this species 
appeared in the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists'’ Club, Vol. XXXV., 
pp. 41-45, Jan. 27th, 1915, by the Hon. W. Rothschild. Though complaining 
that his own previous work had not been fully recognised by some writers, 
Mr. Rothschild writes : “ Before going into the details of the cyanops group 
I must clear up a vexed question of synonymy,” quite ignoring the fact that 
in his own Journal, the Novitates Zoologicce, in 1911, the “ vexed question ” 
had been discussed and “ cleared up ” in the same manner as he now does 
it three and a half years later. Example is better than precept, and 
acknowledgment of previous work would have more forcibly brought the 
mistakes of others home to them. 
228 
