THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
Wales : it was described from, as far as I can trace, a drawing made at Port 
Jackson, and that becomes automatically the type locality. It will be 
observ^ed that Pothschild and Hartert state that the white facial disc is 
common to North and Western birds, but make no comment upon the other 
points I mentioned. It is also the custom to make comparisons when 
introducing subspecies with the nearest geographically related form, but I 
remark that Rothschild and Hartert do not always follow this useful rule 
but refer to the typical subspecies, and this in some cases is most misleading. 
I had noted their confusion with regard to Trichoglossus hcematodus and the 
allied species and subspecies which Ogilvie-Grant has now indicated {Ibis, 
Jub. Supp. 2, 1915, p. 227). 
Tyto novcehollandice whitei Math. The criticism here reads : 
“ The diagnosis — emphasizing a trivial difference in the colour of the 
upperside — clearly shows that Mr. Mathews was not aware of the great 
individual variations exhibited in most forms of the genus Tyto, and the 
difference in size is irrelevant ; we measure the wing 307 mm. There is no 
appreciable difference between whitei, mackayi, Icimberli and perplexa. 
“ We may call attention to the fact that Gould {B. Australia^ 1) says that 
he never shot a ‘white’ specimen in South Australia, while the type of 
whitei has the underside quite white. The supposed whitei can therefore 
not be separated from kimherli, perplexa, etc.” 
It is surprising how confidently my critics emphasize the “ great 
individual variation,” though they had only four specimens from three 
localities to gauge and understand. Moreover, “ the difference in size is 
irrelevant ” : again a definite judgment pronounced through the intensive 
study of four skins. It is, again, extraordinary how they misquote rather 
than exactly quote. Gould was only a very short time in South Australia, 
and he wrote : “ Of the numerous examples I killed in South Australia in 
the month of June I did not meet with one in the white plumage.” 
I have italicised the phrase which Rothschild and Hartert omitted and 
which makes all the difference to the value of Gould’s statement. 
Tyto novcBhollandioe riordani Mathews. “ Diagnosis : ‘ Differs from all 
other subspecies of T. novcehoUandice in its darker upper-surface and larger 
sized wing, 343 mm.’ We cannot agree with these statements : the upper- 
side of the type of riordani is to our eyes a shade less deep than in the type 
of perplexa, and the wing (which we measure 351 mm.) is only 9 mm. longer 
than in the latter ; moreover, the author evidently forgot to think of castanops, 
which is also a subspecies of novcehoUandice. Worst of all, he does not state 
the differences from T. novcehoUandice novcehoUandice; for the latter he fixed 
the type locality as New South Wales, which seems to belong to the same 
388 
