THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
that it will constitute a valid race. I have figured and described this 
Flinders Island bird and this will now stand for the race here recognised, 
whose range will be Tasmania and Flinders Island. 
The reason for the rejection of Vigors and Horsfield’s name “ maculata ’■ 
I have just given. Kerr named a variety of the New Zealand Owl Strix 
novceseelci7idi(B macuUita, in 1792, so it is impossible to maintain Vigors and 
Horfield s name. It is, moreover, not certain that their type came from 
Tasmania, so that the usage of clelandi determines the matter exactly. 
Spihglaux novceseelandice leachi Mathews. 
Victoria. 
The Owls from this colony have been regarded by previous workers as 
boobooJc or inaculatci— clelandi, and as a whole they are certainly neither. 
They cannot be classed as boobook, as they are aU obviously darker, while they 
are all larger than maculata— clelandi, and many of them differ on the under- 
surface, showing striping rather than spotting. Consequently the only 
alternative is their recognition as a valid subspecies. Another way, much 
more cumbersome under the circumstances, would be their recognition as 
intermediates between the two forms mentioned, and they would then be 
classed as : 
S. n. boobook — clelandi. 
I approve of the former method in this case, but just indicate the 
complexity of the species. 
Spiloglaux novceseelandice marmorata (Gould). 
South Australia. 
The birds from this colony were differentiated by Gould as similar to 
maculata but larger : this they undoubtedly are, but they are more like the 
Victorian birds I called tregellasi, having the under-surface haff striped and 
half spotted, or, as Gould’s name implies, “ marbled.” They are lighter than 
the Victorian or Tasmanian birds, and could be regarded as intermediate 
between the former and the West Australian birds, which are still lighter. 
This could be stated thus : 
8. n. leachi — ocellata, 
but here again the simple trinomial is much preferable. 
I described the Kangaroo Island bird as different from the mainland 
South Australian bird, especially as regards the under-surface markings, but 
here I minimise this view, having regard to the Victorian variation, though 
again the constancy of island races of this species necessitates the caution 
that this degradation may be only a temporary one. I have figured and 
described this Kangaroo Island bird, and this must be taken as representative 
of the South Australian race. 
330 
