THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
We measure the type with a wing of 265, and our two males from Cedar 
Bay with wings of 240 and 242 mm. We believe, however, that the type is 
wrongly sexed, being a female, not a male. The upper-side is ornamented 
with much larger white spots, and more distinctly mottled with whitish. 
“Tyto tenebricosa magna Mathews 
Nov. ZooL, XIX., p. 258 (January 1912 — ‘ Victoria ’). 
“Diagnosis: ‘Differs from T. L tenebricosa in its larger size, darker 
coloration, and less spotting. Wing 343 mm. : typ. w. 290.’ 
“We are sorry to say that Mr. Mathews has described the female as a 
new subspecies from comparison with males. Had he cast one glance at our 
series of Tyto tenebricosa arfaki from British Xew Guinea, or looked up 
statements of writers on Australian birds, he would have found that the 
sexes differ enormously in size in these birds. In our T. t. arfaki, for example, 
we find males with wings of 255, and females from the same place with 
wings of 300 mm. Moreover, the statement that the type of Tyto tenebricosa 
magna is darker and less spotted is incorrect, as far as the specimens before 
us are concerned. It is thus clear that magna is a sure synonym of tenebricosa, 
and we can at present only admit : 
“ Tyto tenebricosa tenebricosa : Australia (New South Wales). 
“ Tyto tenebricosa multipunctata : North Queensland. 
“ Tyto tenebricosa arfaki : New Guinea.” 
The preceding is part of their criticism on “ Australian forms of Tyto,^' 
which I have shown to be not blameless with regard to Tyto novcehollandice. 
The present case is in even a worse state. First, they refer the species 
to Tyto, but give no reasons. I am inclined to think that even they will 
admit I am justified in claiming they have erred in doing so after examining 
the birds. Had they examined their specimens at all critically, they would 
have seen the great difference in wing formation and would have recognised 
the genus Megastrix even as they have the genus Megatriorchis. 
Secondly, they admit the form multipunctata, but did not recognise that 
the whole of the three specimens were more or less immature. This would 
account for the small wing length, and as my type seems to be most mature, 
it has the longest wing, irrespective of sex. Their own series shows the 
difference between the adult and immature stages : these have been well 
described by North, but apparently North’s work was not referred to by my 
critics. Nevertheless, the Queensland form is separable, as these more or 
less immature birds differ very appreciably from any similar aged birds from 
any other locality. 
Thirdly, they note that I had compared a female with a male, hence 
magna must be suppressed. As they •wrote with such confidence and such 
406 
