THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
Many years later I received specimens of the Norfolk Island Owl, and 
these proved to be quite unlike the Lord Howe Island form and very 
nearly agreed with the Tasmanian one. I described this in the Austral Avian 
Record, Vol. I., p. 120, Dec. 24, 1912, under the name Ninox hoohooh royana, 
writing: “Differs from N. h. hoohooh in its smaller size and the under- 
surface covered with small spots.” 
I have now detailed the names given to Australian and New Zealand 
birds, but would note that probably many of the forms recognised as species 
from localities north and east of Australia would rank as subspecies only 
of the present species, were series available. This remark is compelled by 
the recognition of the peculiarities of the maculata=clelandi form, and also 
of the howeri=lurida (?) when contrasted with the melvillensis form, as 
I will show later. 
The typical Neozelanic bird is very dark above, almost unspotted, and 
tail feebly barred : the under-surface is very heavily striped with longitudinal 
dark reddish-brown markings ; in this state it is comparatively easily 
distinguished from Australian birds. However, North Island birds are not 
quite so dark, and below, especially on the abdomen, the darker markings 
coalesce so as to leave the white markings in the form of spots : this is the 
form I recognise under the name of venatica Peale, and this is very like 
Tasmanian birds, so much so that odd specimens cannot be easily differen- 
tiated, though a series differs. This indicates that no more than subspecific 
rank can be granted to the many Australian races. As a matter of fact, 
the Tasmanian bird is more easily separable from the New South Wales bird 
than the former is from the Neozelanic bird. I have often considered the 
view that two species might be recognised in Australia, the hoohooh form and 
the macul(ita=clelandi form. The erratic occurrence of the latter encouraged 
this view, and the recognition of the two in Victoria seemed further to confirm 
this. The receipt of additional material and continued study has enabled me 
to negative this aspect, and the only conclusion is that one species only is here 
concerned. It is certain, however, that many subspecies must be accepted, 
though not all that have been named. I, however, have felt compelled to 
give four plates in order to substantiate my conclusions as to the variability 
of the species and the peculiarities of the forms. These four subspecies are 
also described in detail, so that here I will only make comparative remarks 
and would preface these by observing that it will not advance science to 
criticise these without careful study, as was done in the case of other Australian 
Owls, as will hereafter be shown. It will be best to consider these from the 
earlier described forms first. 
328 
