WINKING OWL. 
The range of the typical form is New South Wales, South Queensland, 
and Victoria ; it is unknown in Tasmania and I have no record from South 
Australia. Although North includes the latter, he probably only intended 
the Northern Territory. 
Hieracoglaux connivens addenda Mathews. 
South-west Australia. 
I separated this form on account of its larger size, being the only course 
possible consistent with accuracy. The specimen could not be associated 
with true connivens, as it was larger and slightly darker and was disconnected 
geographically by South Australia a distance of some hundreds of miles. 
The nearest geographical race is occidentalis, and many specimens of this 
from the type locality differed very obviously. It is desirable that more 
specimens should be secured from this locality, but in the meanwhile a name 
is necessary to record the facts. 
Hieracoglaux connivens occidentalis Kamsay. 
North-west Australia. 
In 1886 Ramsay described two specimens from Derby, North-west 
Australia, as follows : “ Two specimens alike in plumage show a larger 
amount of white on the upper wing-coverts, scapulars and hind neck, than 
in the N.S. Wales or Cape York specimens. The whitish bands on the tail 
do not reach the shaft of the feathers ; all the under-surface of the body 
white, with a distinct weU-defined band of rufous-brown down the centre 
of each feather ; the outer webs of the primaries, near the adjacent tips of 
the secondaries, have also a faint reddish tint ; the face is almost white ; 
length 15 inches, wing 12 inches, tail 6.8 inches, tarsus about 1.4 inch ; the 
feet small, claws comparatively weak. I believe this will prove to be a 
distinct species, but must be compared with some of its New Guinea allies. 
For the present, I place it as a western variety of N. connivens, which may 
be distinguished as occidentalis.^"^ 
Two years later Ramsay wrote : “ Ninox connivens occidentalis Ram'^ay 
must be considered as a distinct race ; the Western birds can always be 
distinguished from the Eastern form.” 
North in 1898 added : “ Specimens since obtained in the same locality 
prove it to be a distinct species,” and treated it as such in the Austr. Mus. 
Spec. Cat., No. 1, Vol. III., p. 309, 1912. 
Campbell regarded it as a subspecies only, which is its correct rank. 
Hieracoglaux connivens suhoccidentalis Mathews. 
Northern Territory. 
When I drew up my ^‘Reference List” I separated this form, writing: 
“ Differs from N. c. connivens in its paler coloration, but not so pale as 
VOL. V. 
345 
