RUFOUS OWL. 
N. humemlis, of Hombron and Jacquinot. Judging by a single specimen in 
the collection from North Australia, where the type of N. rufa was obtained 
by Gilbert, it may be distinguished from N. humeralis by its paler and more 
numerously barred upper-surface, its ear-coverts being brown indistinctly 
streaked with white, instead of entirely black ; the barrings on the breast 
sandy-rufous and without any conterminous lines of dark brown, and the 
tail-feathers being crossed with thirteen pale brown bars, instead of eight 
as in N. humeralis. Total length 19.25 inches ; wing 14.5, tail 9.75, bill 1.95, 
tarsus 2. Gould’s figure, which is not a good one of N. rufa, however, exhibits 
the same number of cross-bars on the exposed portion of the under-surface of 
the tail-feathers as are found in N. humeralis, and the wing-measurement in 
the description is almost the same as that given by Dr. Sharpe of the latter 
species. Should subsequent research prove these two birds alike, which 
I have here kept distinct, Hombron and Jacquinot’s name of N. humeralis 
must rank as a synonym of Gould’s older name of N. rufa.” 
Seven years later Hartert recorded specimens from the South Alligator 
River, Northern Territory, under the name Ninox rufa rufa, commenting : 
“ Gould’s Ninox rufa has evidently been erroneously united with N. strenua 
in the Cat. B. II., and, unfortunately, the error is repeated in the Hand- 
List, Vol. I. I have before me a series of adult strenua and of equally 
adult rufa. Ninox rufa rufa inhabits N.W. Australia. Specimens from the 
Cape York Peninsula and North Queensland seem to be smaller and should 
probably be separable subspecifically. I have, however, only seen two, and 
I hesitate to name this form from such a small material. These Cape York 
specimens have apparently been identified with Ninox rufa humeralis from 
New Guinea, but the latter is darker and still smaller than the North 
Queensland examples, which agree in colour with Western rufa.” 
It will be observed that no mention is made of either the observations 
of De Vis or the criticism of North, so that probably Hartert was ignorant 
of the writings of these Australian workers. ' ^ 
Upon receipt of specimens showing plumage changes, I differentiated 
the Queensland form under the name Ninox humeralis queenslandica, writing : 
“ Differs from typical N. humeralis (Homb. and Jacq.) from New Guinea, 
in having the light-coloured bars on the under-surface white, and the brown 
ones with a very slight tinge of buff. All the bars on the under-surface 
are wider than in N. humeralis. 
“ Hob. The Hollows, Mackay, North Q’ld. 
“ Ohs. Immature birds shot in Queensland are hardly to be distinguished 
from immature examples of Ninox humeralis shot in New Guinea, but in the 
fuUy adult plumage they are very distinct.” 
VOL. V. 
353 
