THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
compared with those of Van Oort and Berlepsch, although the figures differ 
considerably, we note the same conclusions. I observe, however, that 
whereas Van Oort’s measurement for his Dutch New Guinea specimens read 
“ wing of $ 260, 300, 298, 285, 297, not sexed 300-305 mm.” Rothschild 
and Hartert write 320-330 mm. for the same measurement also for birds from 
Dutch New Guinea. Again, while classing birds from “ Waigeu, Gebe, 
Salawati and Misool ” together. Van Oort absolutely separates from these 
the birds from the Aru Islands as being less. These were incorrectly attached 
by Rothschild and Hartert. However, Van Oort notes a large .specimen from 
Waigeu so it is possible this island may support a larger race. I also note 
that Robinson and Laverock measure the bill of a specimen from Port Moresby 
as 47 mm., a measurement much larger than North Queensland birds with 
the same length of wing. 
I consequently suggest the following as a basis for the elucidation 
of the forms of this species inhabiting New Guinea and the adjoining islands. 
It is first necessary to dispose of the names given to these extra-limital 
forms. 
The first name given is chrysolophus of Lesson. As, however, this appears 
to be simply a substitute name for galerita Latham, I would continue its 
suppression. I note it here, however, as when it was proposed Lesson noted 
that the bird was very common in New Guinea. Lesson, however, personally 
visited both New Guinea and New South Wales, and it is certain that he 
confused both as one species, which I conclude is the truth. The name 
chrysolophus therefore disappears as a synonym. 
Temminck distinguished the New Guinea form under the name triton , 
which has been generally accepted and is here preserved for the Dutch New 
Guinea race. Blyth, some years afterward, recognised that specimens from 
New Guinea were smaller than typical Australian birds, and also noted the 
coloration of the blue eye-space. Not served with a full array of literature, 
he proposed to name this form Cacatua cyanopis if it were nameless. No 
definite locality was given and as the New Guinea form had been previously 
named, Blyth’ s name may be classed as an absolute synonym of the earlier 
name triton Temminck. 
In the Journ. fur Orn. 1861 (Jan.), p. 45. Rosenberg gave the name 
of Plyctolophus macrolophus to the birds of Mysol and Salwatti. 
Finsch (Ned. Tijdschr. Dier. & Berigt., p. 21, 1863) proposed Cacatua 
eleonora from unknown locality, but Waigou was afterwards indicated. 
Should the Waigou birds be separable, as is suggested by Van Oort’s measure- 
ment, this name must be utilised. In the meanwhile it is ranked as a synonym 
of macrolophus Rosenberg. 
186 
