OWLET NIGHTJAR. 
eastern, whicli I should call the true novcehollandicB, and a more northern and 
western one, which would be leucogaster of Gould, can be distinguished. 
Recently Mr. Robert Hall has described as new a form from the Fitzroy River, 
first naming it rufescens ; afterwards, having found out that the name 
rufescens was already used for another species, renaming it M. rufa {Victorian 
Naturalist, XVIIL, pp. 60, 89, 1902). Locality and description suggest a 
priori that Mr, Hall’s supposed new form (if different from M. novoehollandicB 
novmhollandioe) is Gould’s leucogaster. The series now before me—i.e. the 
specimens collected by Mr. Tunney, some from Point Cloates collected by 
Mr. Tom Carter, and some from Northern Queensland — show beyond doubt 
that the rufous-cinnamon examples are not specifically different from the 
grey ones, for we have all intermediates between both forms from the same 
districts. Thus Mr. Hall created two new synonyms at once. The question 
only remains whether there are two subspecies ; and I believe that one should 
distinguish the north-western ones as leucogaster, because they are mostly 
lighter and larger, and cinnamon examples are more frequently found among 
them. There is, however, no adequate series from S.E. Australia in England, 
and I must therefore again appeal to Australian ornithologists to settle the 
question. If they send me a good series from New South Wales, etc., I shall 
be glad to give my opinion. Mr. Hall has evidently most insufficiently studied 
the individual variation of the species, for several of his characters (as, for 
example, the number of bars on the tail !) are the most variable ones. A 
bird from Gracefield, Cranbrook (S.W. Australia), is a typical novcEhollandice.’’ 
This criticism by Hartert was not a judicial one, and it was through his 
own fault in the British Museum Catalogue that HaU indicated his new species. 
As noted above, that Catalogue was not of the standard afterwards reached 
by Hartert, and it should have been apologised for when dealing with Hall’s 
species, instead of which, apparent pity at Hall’s ignorance is expressed. 
Note where he comments upon the barring of the tail as a character. Now 
refer to the Catalogue of Birds, Vol. XVI., p. 646, where he gave a “ Key to 
the Species,” and defined 
“A. Tail with 12 or more bars ; markings on breast 
and upper-parts finer . . . . . . . . novwholl^ndice. 
“ B. Tail with 10 or less bars ; pale markings above, 
and dusky markings on breast broader and 
less numerous . . . , . . . . . . hennetti.^^ 
Thus, it was Hartert’ s own specific character of barring of the tail that 
attracted Hall, and when Hartert indicated that it should be regarded as 
individual only, he did not state that, therefore, he had been in the wrong in 
using it also as a specific character. As a matter of fact, that “Key” is a 
63 
