THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
This is less remarkable than in the case of the previous species, as that 
is a striking and beautiful bird, while this shows no very noticeable 
characters. 
Even when Harriers were determined from Australia a confusion took 
place, as the adult of this species resembles the juvenile of the previous 
one, and the latter being described, the name was wrongly associated 
with the present species. 
In Gould’s “Birds of Australia” this bird was figured under the name 
assimilis and this usage was continued until 1874, as related previously. 
In the Consp. Gen. Av., Vol. I., p. 34, 1850, Bonaparte recognised that 
two species had been wrongly named and therefore proposed : 
“ Circus gouldi Bp. {assimilis Kaup, Gray, partim) ex Austr. Similis 
C. aeruginosOy nec Strigicipi jardinii, sed major.” 
When Sharpe made the correction, which was confirmed by Gurney, 
he selected this name for the Australian bird which ranged to Fiji, New 
Caledonia and New Zealand. Gurney had separated the New Caledonian 
bird as G. wolfi, but Sharpe lumped this, to which Gurney objected. 
The latter also indicated the recognition of approxirrwms Peale instead 
of gouldi Bonap., and in the List Diurnal Birds Prey, 1884, p. 21, 
used Peale’s name, giving the following footnote (p. 22 ) : ‘‘I find that the 
Harrier of the Fiji Islands {Circus approximans) is, as stated in Mr. 
Sharpe’s volume, identical with G. gouldi of Australia and New Zealand. 
In my last note in the Ihis above referred to (1876, p. 384), I mentioned 
that as the only Fijian Harrier which I had examined was immature, 
I felt doubtful whether it should be referred to C. gouldi or C. wolfi ; 
but I have since ascertained its identity with the former by the inspection 
of two adult males, kindly lent to me by Captain Wardlaw Ramsay, 
which were obtained by Mr. Layard at Bua Vanua Levu in the Fiji 
Islands. As the specific name ‘ approximans ’ was applied by Peale to 
this Harrier in 1848, it has priority over that of ‘ gouldi ’ proposed for it 
by Bonaparte in 1850 and adopted in Mr. Sharpe’s volume and also in 
my notes, as weU as in Mr. BuUer’s Birds of New Zealand.’’^ 
This clearly-made correction was misunderstood as applicable to the 
Australian bird, though three attempts have been made to enforce its use. 
Legge in his “ Systematic List of Tasmanian Birds ” in 1887 introduced it, 
but no one followed him. North, in the second edition of the Australian 
Accipitres in 1898 then accepted it, but as the following year Sharpe in the 
Handl. Birds, Vol. I., p. 246, continued the misusage of gouldi. North aban- 
doned the correct view and in 1911 reverted to gouldi. In the same year 
I revived Peale’s name in the Nov. Zool., Vol. XVIII., p. 10, 1911, and 
26 
