THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
one species will be recognised. At any rate, all the Australian birds as far as 
at present known are referable to one species and, moreover, the subspecies 
seem very ill-defined. I have attempted to indicate such, but my attempts 
read as confusedly as Rothschild and Hartert’s, and it must be obvious that 
when Gould wrote of the confusion of the nomenclature, he might have been 
anticipating the confusion of forms. If we simply treat them geographically 
we would arrive at some such grouping as the following : — 
Urospiza torquata torquata. Timor, Savu, Alor. 
wallacii. Lesser Sunda Islands. 
sumbaensis. Sumba. 
Urospiza fasciata polycrypta. 
didima. 
cruenta. 
fasciata. 
insularis. 
New Guinea. 
North West Australia. 
West and South-west Australia. 
East Australia. 
New Caledonia. 
This would be a nice result and would probably be a true one, but 
definition of the preceding races would be difficult. Variation has produced 
specimens in almost every locality agreeing with odd birds from some 
other. Thus specimens of “ cruenta ” are inseparable from “ fasciata ” 
typical, while other birds of “ cruenUi ” are just as close to “ polycrypta^^^ 
though typical “ cruenta ” are abundantly distinct from typical “ fasciata 
and typical “ polycrypta ” are separable from “ cruenta ” typical. Moreover, 
^"polycrypta"" has been referred to ""torquata,"" and ""wallacii"" by such 
authorities as Sharpe and Salvadori. 
As regards Australian birds my separation into three races as quoted 
(not exactly) by Rothschild and Hartert is a very dubious result, and the 
much abused ""cruenta"" seems after all to be the almost negligible sub- 
species. The Northern form I havre called ""didima"^ seems to be better 
defined and to be what Hartert, Ramsay and North have recognised as 
“ cruenta."" 
I would quote the latest remarks upon the subject, viz. those by 
H. L. White {Emu, Vol. XIV., p. 154-156, 1915), entitled: “Notes upon 
Astur cruentus {Urospiza fasciata cruenta)."" 
“A considerable amount of uncertainty has always existed with regard to 
this bird, and Mr. A. J. North’s note (Vol. III., p. 194) in ‘Nests and Eggs 
of Birds found Breeding in Australia and Tasmania ’ still further confuses 
matters. During Mr. G. M. Mathews’ visit to Australia he spent several 
days with me, examining all my specimens most carefully. Concerning 
Urospiza fasciata cruenta, he postponed giving a final opinion until he 
68 
