BLACK-CHEEKED FALCON. 
peregrinus macropus was intended. I do not state that ernesti is a distinct 
species, but I note that under Falco peregrinus pelegrinoides Temm. Hartert has 
written : “ One might be in doubt if this Falcon should be treated as a sub- 
species of the Peregrine, or as a distinct species, but I have no doubt that — 
from my point of view — the former course is the right one. I am glad to say 
I agree in this with Neumann, Kleinschmidt, and many others.” I am 
familiar with Neumann^ s views on subspecies from conversation and I have 
an idea of Kleinschmidt’s from his writings, so that I should conclude 
Khynchodon pelegrinoides Temminck was a distinct species. It may not be. 
Hartert may be very familiar with Palsearctic Peregrines, but he does not 
write acceptably of Australasian birds. Thus, under Falco peregrinus ernesti 
Sharpe, he observes : “ Birds from Java are either F. p. calidus in winter 
quarters, or ernesti, but certainly not melanogenys. Peregrines have been 
collected on the Fiji Islands, in New Caledonia, and on the New Hebrides. 
If they were resident on those groups, a series of adult birds would perhaps 
show them to differ from their allies, but they are more likely only stragglers 
of melanogenys or maybe of ernesti : young birds are veiy dark.” 
However Dr. Hartert expects melanogenys to straggle to Fiji since it 
is confined otherwise to Australia I do not understand. I believe young 
birds have been collected in those Islands. That really does not concern 
me much, but Dr. Hartert’s remarks under the name Falco peregrinus 
macropus Swainson do. 
I quote Dr. Hartert’s notes and give my replies : 
“ Falco melanogenys Gould, Synops. B. Austral., pt. m., pi. 42 and 
text, April, 1838 — ‘Australia generally.’ Mathews, List B. Australia, p. Ill, 
says, ‘ Tasmania,’ but Gould says distinctly ‘ Australia generally,’ and also 
in the contemporary description in Proc. Zool. Soc. (London), part V., 1837, 
p. 139, published in December, 1838, he says, ‘ Hab. per totam Australiam.’ 
Mr. Mathews can therefore not say ‘ Tasmania.’ If, in some way, he has 
found out that Gould’s type — though he probably had a number ^ of 
specimens from various parts of Australia — came from Tasmania, he must 
quote ‘ Australia generally,’ which is erroneous, as Gould had only one skin 
from Tasmania, as shown in such and such a way.” 
Such a paragraph is entirely superfluous and only reveals the superficial 
review of the literature made by even such authorities as Dr. Hartert when 
dealing with Australian birds. Had Dr. Hartert made only a little search 
into recent work on Australian birds he must assuredly have noted a paper 
by Witmer Stone entitled, “ A List of the Species of Australian Birds 
described by John Gould, with the location of the Type Specimens,” This 
valuable list appeared in the Austral Avian Record, Vol. I., pp. 129-180, Feb. 28, 
VOL. V. 
249 
