WINKING OWL. 
Wentworth River,” and “ Strix. No. 14, p. 19. Male. Gizzard contained 
only insects’ tarsi, mandibula, etc. Viet. River. Nov. 55.” 
Such diversity of opinion necessitates the usage of a distinct name for 
this varying and puzzling form. I write puzzling, but this is probably only 
due to want of specimens. 
Hieracoglaux connivens peninsularis Salvador!. 
Cape York. 
This subspecies was described by Salvador! on account of its smaller 
size and darker colour, and was accepted by Sharpe, as noted above, for all 
Northern birds. The researches of M’Lennan, Barnard and Kemp have made 
this form familiar and North accepted it, but did not consider it as distinct 
as the Western form, while Macgillivray concluded it was quite distinct. 
It is certainly recognisable as a well-defined subspecies, but no higher 
value can be placed upon it. 
It is represented in New Guinea and the islands by two or more forms ; 
there is not material available to determine how many, but specialists on 
New Guinea, etc., birds admit two. 
Rothschild and Hartert {Nov. Zool., Vol. XIV., 1907) dealing with 
Papuan Owls admit : 
p. 444. Ninox connivens connivens Latham ; Australia (East). 
p. 445. N. c. occidentalis Ramsay, Western form, observing : “ Probably 
Ninox peninsularis Salvad. from Cape York is a closely allied form of this 
species.” 
p. 445. N. c. assimilis Salvad. & D’Alb. : “ Very much smaller than 
the Australian allies.” 
p. 445. N. c. rufostrigata Gray : “ Quite like N. c. assimilis, but 
much larger.” 
Apparently Rothschild and Hartert were unaware of Sharpe’s 
determination of Ninox peninsularis Salvador! when he reported upon the 
“ Alert ” Collection, nor did they examine the British Museum collection, 
where many birds are labelled Ninox peninsularis, including reputed Cape 
York specimens. It would be concluded that monographic reviews such as 
Rothschild and Hartert have furnished in these “ Notes on Papuan Birds ” 
would consider the majority of available material, but from the preceding 
it will be gathered they have not done so. The first specimen of N. assimilis 
(from the Astrolabe Range, and probably therefore correctly determined) I 
measured in the British Museum had the wing over 270 mm., which is 
therefore not “ very much smaller than the Australian allies.” 
In the Jubilee Suppl., No. 2, of the Ibis, Dec., 1915, Ogilvie-Grant has 
emphasized Rothschild and Hajtert’s error on p. 256. He has written 
347 
