PLUMED FROGMOUTH. 
fawn colour, with dark subapical spots ; under-surface of flight-quiUs pale brown 
with mottled crossbars ; lower aspect of tail mottled with brown and isabelline, 
the pale shafts rather conspicuous. Total length 490 mm. ; culmen 28, wing 230, 
tail 237, tarsus 24. Figured. Collected in Southern Queensland. And is the type 
of C. p. neglecta. 
Op this species Gould wrote : “ The only information I have to communicate 
respecting this beautiful Podavgus is that it is a native of the brushes of 
the Clarence and neighbouring rivers in New South Wales, and that several 
examples have come under my notice, of which one is deposited in the Museum 
at Dublin, another in the Museum at Manchester, and a third was sent to 
me by the late Mr. Strange of Sydney. The Podargus plumiferus is readily 
distinguished from all the other Australian members of the genus by the more 
lengthened form of tail and by the remarkable and conspicuous tufts of 
feathers which spring from immediately above the nostrils ; considerable 
variation is found to exist in the colouring of the various specimens, some 
being much redder than the others, and having the markings on the under- 
surface much less distinct and of a more chestnut tint.” 
No specimens were available to Hartert when he monographed the group 
in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XVI., so that he 
wrote : “ Dr. E. P. Ramsay considers P. plumiferus to be a distinct species, but 
I cannot distinguish it from P. papuensis ; and if I am correct, the range of 
the latter species must be extended to the Richmond River district, and to 
New South Wales.” 
The authorities at the Museum at Dublin and Manchester were unable, at 
my request, to trace the specimens alluded to by Gould above, so that I 
admitted plumiferus as a subspecies of papuensis, on locality grounds alone, 
in my “ Reference List ” and also “ List.” 
When in Australia I saw the specimen from which Ramsay concluded that 
the species was distinct, and another in the Macleay Museum, and I also secured 
a similar bird, which is here figured. These have been carefully compared, and 
agree in detail. I therefore recorded in the Austral Av. Rec. (Vol. II., p. 91, 
1914) that plumiferus should be considered as a distinct species, but left it in 
Cyphorhina, the genus-name used for the papuensis group. Recent considera- 
tion caused me to doubt the exact relationship of the bird I have with (Mould’s 
figure, so that 1 named my own specimen Cyphorhina plumifera neglecta, and it 
must be clearly understood that my remarks hereafter refer to this specimen. 
Upon critical comparison with the known Podargus it does not agree exactly, 
and its nearest ally seems to be not papuensis but marmoratus. With rufous 
specimens of the latter in the British Museum, from the Gould collection labelled 
Cape York, it disagrees in no detail of coloration, but is immensely^ superior in 
43 
