THE BIBBS OF AUSTBALIA. 
Tasmania especially, but also Victoria, South Australia, and even New South 
Wales, while the last-named was the North Queensland bird. The typical 
locality of ‘‘ boobooJc ” being New South Wales, comparisons must be made 
with birds from that locality. Birds from the Northern Territory and North- 
west Australia agree in every essential character, but are noticeably paler, 
and some specimens closely approximate. From South-west Australia, birds are 
commonly darker than the preceding, and have been called typical boobook, 
though usually they are slightly paler. However, between South-west 
Australia and New South Wales comes South Australia, and here darker birds 
than the latter occur, and in Victoria darker ones still are found, while in 
Tasmania a small dark bird is found, the typical {maculata) clelandi. This 
is at first sight quite distinct from boobook, but Victorian birds are directly 
intermediate, and very often recorded under the Tasmanian name. Some 
Victorian birds, however, differ appreciably from the Tasmanian ones, and 
these are just as commonly called ‘^boobook” In South Australia the birds 
approximate to this latter form, while also developing towards the West 
Australian race. This Victorian bird would be quite sufficient to prove 
the closeness of the two species, but it has been more commonly used to 
differentiate them, a view I at one time leaned to. The recurrence of 
the island (Tasmanian) form in such distant places as Norfolk Island, 
North Queensland and Melville Island has convinced me of the identity 
specifically of all the so-called species. 
The Neozelanic Owl is very much darker, so that it has not commonly 
been united to the Australian forms, but some specimens are scarcely 
distinguishable from some Tasmanian birds. As a matter of fact, there is 
much more difference between many of the Australian subspecies than 
between the Tasmanian and Neozelanic forms. The recognition of more 
than one species would necessitate the acceptance of probably half a dozen, 
and then, the definition of the species would be quite impossible, as these 
birds are to some extent variable. 
The notes hereafter given are to a slight degree ranged in agreement with 
the localities of the subspecies recognised, but some quotations may be out of 
place. It is possible that some of the subspecies have different habits, but 
so little has been recorded that it is quite impossible to give any profitable 
criticism. 
Gould’s notes are interesting, as he considered boobook and macukita 
{= clelandi) very distinct species, and hence wrote: 
“ I have seen individuals of this Owl {boobook) from every one of the 
Australian colonies, all presenting similar characters, with the exception of 
those from Port Essington, which differ from the others in being a trifle 
314 
