MASKED OWL. 
that a longer series is necessary to fully define the subspecies, but it is worthy 
of note that North has recorded a similar example from South Australia, 
which he compared with specimens from Port Essington. I know of no 
alternative to the above nomination, as geographically this race comes between 
riordani and ferplexa, and it is not by any means intermediate between the two. 
Tyto novcehollayidicB perplexa Mathews. 
South-west Australia. 
This form approaches the typical race but is darker; with buffy spots 
beneath, and it is also larger. Rothschild and Hartert questioned my 
judgment in separating this form because it is only darker and larger. Their 
conclusion to use this name for northern examples is not a good one, as 
I will point out. Again, North has classed a skin from King George’s 
Sound, West Australia, as a “ medium var.” with very large measurements. 
This confirms my judgment in separating this form, which cannot be 
confused with Northern birds, but belongs to the southern group. I am 
quite unable to suggest any other method of designating these birds save 
as above. As far as I can conclude at the present time, the birds listed 
above, viz., from South Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, 
South Australia and South-west Australia, belong to a group characterized 
by their larger size and more buff coloration above and below, emphasized 
in the immature and females, and which must be contrasted as a whole 
with the birds from North-west Australia, Northern Territory and North 
Queensland, which are smaller, the buff disappearmg, and in males from 
some localities almost lost altogether. 
These two groups can be further subdivided as above shown in the first 
group, and I now deal with the members of the second group : these are more 
closely united than those of the first, but again the differences observed should 
bear designations. 
\ 
Tyto novoehollandicB kimherli Mathews. 
North-west Australia^ 
Northern Territory. 
I have fully described and figured this very distinct form, concerning 
which Rothschild and Hartert wTOte: “There was no justification for the 
separation,” and cited their pair from the South Alligator River as showing 
individual variation. This pair constituted half their material : the materia] 
which enabled them to judge the variation existent in the species. One of 
them is an adult male, which agrees closely with my kimherli and is very 
different from anything we have already discussed. W^hy Rothschild and 
Hartert should suggest uniting this with perplexa and whitei I do not know, 
unless they were prejudiced by their other specimen, which is that of a female 
395 
