THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA, 
manner. The result of this subdivision was an essay provided by Rothschild 
and Hartert, who, with no additional material, with little knowledge of 
local conditions, and without much study, published a paper in the Nov. 
Zool, Vol. XX. 
In order that this anti-criticism may be understood, I here reproduce 
Rothschild and Hartert’s criticisms, with my own comments as I now view 
the matter. 
Their criticism appeared in the Nov. Zool, Vol. XX., pp. 280-284, June 
1913, and is entitled “ On some Australian Forms of T^to.^^ It begins : 
“ We have both always been particularly interested in the genus Tyto Billb.” 
This may be perfectly true, but had they added : “Of the Australian 
T. novcBhollandice we have only been able to accumulate six skins, two of 
which are scientifically valueless, and the remaining four from three different 
localities,” a better appreciation of their results would have been enforced. 
As an item of interest I note these writers quote the wrong volume of their 
own Journal throughout, in one case adding the wrong month. 
Regarding T. n. per'plexa Rothschild and Hartert comment : “ The 
type of T. n. perplexa is a female, with the wing 342 mm. It would seem 
that Mr. Mathews had not been aware of the fact that in T. novcehollandice 
the sexes differ in size, the female being considerably larger, with the wings 
from 2 to 3 cm. longer : nor of the fact that nearly all species of the genus 
Tyto vary individually to a great extent, like so many other Owls. If he 
had known these facts, he could not have described a female as a new sub- 
species because its wings were 2 or 3 cm. longer, or because its upperside 
is a shade richer in colour than most other specimens of what he then 
considered to be T. novcehollandice in January 1912. If he splits the species 
up into seven or eight forms, as he did in April 1912, his perplexa would in 
any case be the same as his kimherli and whitei.'’'' 
I knew quite well that the females were larger, and I also knew about 
the variability. I do not see that the series of four specimens possessed by 
Rothschild and Hartert was sufficient to make them proficient judges of the 
variation of a species whose range was the whole of Australia. We are not 
concerned with the variation of other Owls, but of this species, and it is not 
the least good attempting to judge from analogy. As a matter of fact this 
species does show variation when it is understood, but this cannot be 
done with four specimens. 
I should have thought that Hartert’s experience with the Barn Owl, 
Tyto alba, would have educated him to the value of small differences. Many 
of the subspecies he admits on inappreciable characters and with much more 
restricted range than “ Australia.” He seems altogether unable to under- 
386 
