OWLET NIGHTJAR. 
After careful criticism I have determined to difierentiate this race imder 
the name 
JEgotheles cristata centralia, subsp. n. 
The type is a male, collected at Stevenson’s River, on October 5th, 1913, 
It is more rufous than any other red bird, but the back is boldly barred with 
dull blackish : the throat and upper-breast are very rufous, this colour 
extending on to the flanks and across the abdomen, where there is scarcely 
any white, though the under tail-coverts are white. 
There stiU remains to be considered a series collected on Melvflle Island. 
These are apparently closer to the south-eastern birds than to the north- 
western specimens, showing dark upper coloration and also less white on the 
under-parts, the markings on the upper-surface also being bolder. No red 
specimens at all were met with. In addition, the series give larger measure- 
ments than the typical series do, the wing in males averaging 136 mm., in 
females 133 mm., indicating that the former may be slightly larger than the 
latter. The wing in south-eastern series averages 127 mm. in males, 125 mm. 
in females. 
I propose for the Melville Island race 
Mgotheles cristata melvillensiSf subsp. n. 
The type is a male, collected on Melvflle Island on January 6th, 1912. 
No New Guinea forms have been considered as subspecies of the 
Australian species, and recently Ogflvie-Grant wrote in the Jubilee 
Supplement, No. 2, of The Ibis as if there were little relationship between 
them. This was due to the prevalent idea among old-world ornithologists 
that “Australia” was an ornithological locality comparable in extent with 
any small island of the Moluccas. It should be emphasised that the tail- 
barring, utilised by Hartert to differentiate the New Guinea bennetti, is not 
an invalid feature ; but that the tafl-barrmg of North (West) Australian 
birds is much more distinctive when these are compared with typical 
specimens, notwithstanding Hartert’ s comments in connection with Hall’s 
consideration of this character. 
The form A. bennetti from South-east New Guinea must be called 
^gotheles cristata bennetti Salvador! and D’ Albertis. \\ 
It is probable that Ogflvie-Grant would have assisted science Had he, 
when dealing with New Guinea j^gotheles, reviewed the whole of the “ species,” 
as there appears to be much confusion. The New Guinea forms are separated 
in hterature by characters which are completely ignored as individual when 
Australian birds are examined. Yet Australia is a bigger place and with 
more faunulas than New Guinea. It is, therefore, probable, as Hartert 
suggested twenty-five years ago, that “ several of these (the New Guinea) 
67 
