THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
be fairly plentiful along the freshwater creeks, and several old nesting-places 
were noted.” 
In the Additions to the Second Supplement of the General Synopsis of 
Birds, Latham described (p. 372, 1801) an “ Azure Kingfisher,” writing : 
“ Inhabits Norfolk Island.” The locality in this case, as in others among 
these Additions, was erroneous, as the bird does not occur at Norfolk Island. 
It is even possible that the species was described from Watling’s Plate 79, 
which Sharpe deals with as follows [Hist. Coll. Nat. Hist. B. M., Vol. II., 
p. 123, 1906) : “ No. 79. Sacred Kingfisher, variety. 
Azure Kingfisher, Lath., Gen. Syn., Suppl., ii., p. 372. 
Alcedo azurea, Lath., Ind. Orn., Suppl., p. xxxii. 
Alcyone azurea, Sharpe, Cat. B., xvii., p. 168. 
This is a very good figure of Alcyone azurea, and has nothing to do with the 
Sacred Kingfisher, with which Latham attempts to identify it. Watling gives 
no note to this figure.” 
However, specimens were received in England about this time, because 
Shaw and Nodder described the same species in the Naturalist's Miscellany 
in 1805, under the name Alcedo tribrachys. As these authors did not know 
Latham’s name was applicable, this suggests that Latham might have described 
it from a painting. Lesson proposed Ceyx cyanea for a specimen labelled 
“ Timor,” but this was the present species, and New South Wales is now 
given as the locality of Lesson’s species. 
When Swainson introduced the genus name Alcyone he provided a new 
specific name for Latham’s species, but this was quite unnecessary. 
The preceding names are all perfectly synonymous, but in the Proc. 
Zool. Soc. {Bond.), 1846, Gould examined the birds and, using geographical 
boundaries, he separated as distinct species the birds inhabiting Tasmania and 
those from Port Essington, Northern Territory. This was strictly accurate 
but we do not now consider geographical races which show such slight 
differences as separable specifically, but regard them only as subspecies. For 
many years, however, Gould’s separation was acknowledged, and specific 
distinction allowed to the three forms. 
These three “ species ” were admitted by Sharpe in his “ Monograph,” 
but in the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum (Vol. XVII., p. 168, 
1892) he only admitted one species, Alcyone azurea, and one subspecies, Alcyone 
pulchra. He concluded: “A. diemenensis cannot be separated from A. azurea, 
and the characters on which I depended in my ‘ Monograph ’ are merely those 
of an immature bird.” Of the subspecies his definition reads : “ Similar to 
A. azurea, but richer in colour, more purplish-blue above, brighter cinnamon- 
rufous or deep bay below, and further distinguished by the brilliant purplish- 
90 
