THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
Subspecies are of little value when a large continental area is discussed, 
and I have constantly treated subspecies as deserving of little consideration. 
In the determination of migratory birds in the Palsearctic area the different 
subspecies are more valuable, but still they have been much overvalued by 
Northern workers. The British subspecies, as instance, are in many cases 
so slightly differentiated that many British ornithologists deny them 
recognition, while others would utilise such ill-defined forms to dogmatize 
on migrants. In such a vast extent of country as Australia, where varying 
conditions are continually met with, very many subspecies are well marked, 
while others certainly as valid are ill-marked and need careful consideration. 
The present species furnishes a beautiful illustration in many ways. 
Gould, recognising that Tasmania was a distinct entity from the 
mainland of Australia, determined the majority of Tasmanian birds as 
distinct species, though recognising they were mostly geographical variations 
only, such as now termed subspecies. In this case he named the Tasmanian 
funereus bird, xanthanotus and always wrote of it as a species. He later 
noted that South Australian birds agreed with Tasmanian ones. Recent 
writers have restricted the Tasmanian form to Tasmania, concluding that South 
Australian birds were typical. The most distinctive feature of the Tasmanian 
bird is its smaller size, Gould also cited colour variation and North has also 
mentioned this item. With my series I do not see any variation in colour 
that can be regarded as a constant factor, hence I conclude size is the only 
decisive feature. It is impossible to compare measurements made by 
different workers, as no two workers follow the same methods and get the same 
figures. I have been severely criticised by the reviewer in the Auk for my 
folly in not giving measurements. I would acknowledge that if I gave 
pages of measurements, as is the custom of my American friends, it would 
not prejudice any worker in favour of my subspecific forms, and I would 
rather that these forms were confirmed or rejected absolutely without 
prejudice. This method of giving pages of measurements and then averaging 
the results does not validate the subspecies, and is comparatively useless and 
a waste of paper. The work must be done, but the results only are necessary, 
not the methods whereby the results were achieved. 
In this species I find I get the following results (the males and females 
are equivalent in size). 
Tasmanian birds : Wing 350, 380, 390, 390, 360, 360, 365, 393 mm. 
Victorian birds : Wing 388, 365, 393, 428, 372, 390, 380 mm. 
Kangaroo Island bird : Wing 382 mm. 
New South Wales birds : Wing 425, 415 mm. 
King Island birds : Wing 392, 392, 370, 372, 372 mm. 
148 
