THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
of the head. One immature bird was found dead, having fractured its skull by 
flying against the wire of a fence.” 
The species was simultaneously named by White and Latham, and 
Swainson simply gave White’s figure a new name. A couple of years later 
Jardine and Selby described a new species, the chief difference being given as 
the form of the wing. All these names refer absolutely to the typical form, 
as did also another name proposed by Latham for a painting made by Watling. 
However, when Gould received birds from the North-west of Australia 
he did not hesitate to determine them as different. In doing so he was 
undoubtedly correct, the only argument being the value of the difference, 
whether specific or subspecific. 
The variation seen in the typical form caused misgiving as to the validity 
of Gould’s second species by Australian ornithologists, and though it was 
maintained by Ramsay, he wrote : “ Derby. This bird is very variable in its 
tints of plumage, especially on the upper-surface.” And later : “ Specimens 
from N.E. Australia and Derby are identical, and should be considered one 
and the same species, varying chiefly in colour, slightly only in size.” When 
Hartert wrote the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Vol. XVI., he 
synonymised Gould’s two species without detailed explanation, stating : 
“ I cannot make out whether the female differs from the male or not, but 
the sexes are probably alike. Some specimens are darker, some paler ; the 
characteristic markings of the head are often indistinct ; in other specimens 
the pale parts of the head and breast are strongly tinged with rufous. As the 
rufous colour varies greatly, I am inclined to believe that it is independent 
of age and sex, and merely an individual character. The figures of jBgotheles 
novcehollandice and the supposed leucogaster in Gould’s Birds of Australia 
are much exaggerated.” 
This was written when Hartert was depressed by the importance of the 
work, and his own necessity to conserve the traditions of the British Museum 
authorities. 
Ten years later Hall received very rufous specimens from North-west 
Australia and, regarding them as a distinct species, named them rufescens, 
afterwards rufa. 
Hartert, in the Nov. Zool., Vol. XII., p. 216, 1905, having received a series 
of birds from North-west Australia, recorded them under the name “ ^gotheles 
novcehollandice {? leucogaster),^^ observing : “ When I wrote the catalogue of 
the Podargidce in the British Museum {Cat. B., XVI., 1892) I could not make 
out that two subspecies could be distinguished in Australia, but the material 
available was absolutely inadequate. I am now of opinion, from what I have 
recently seen, that it is, after all, possible that two forms, a more southern and 
62 
