BLUE KINGFISHER. 
under the name Alcyone azuTca lessoni, following Rothschild and Hartert, 
and wrote : “ The type specimen of A. lessoni Cassin was obtained at Dorei, 
Geelvink Bay. and there can, I think, be no doubt that typical examples from 
that locality are indistinguishable from the series listed above. The relation- 
ship between this form and A. azurea Lath, is more difficult to define. As a rule 
Australian birds have the lower back, rump, and upper tail-coverts blue, almost 
a deep cobalt, while in New Guinea birds these parts are nearly or quite uniform 
purplish-blue, like the rest of the upper-parts. A. pulchra Gould is founded 
on fully mature examples of A. azurea, and has no geographical significance, 
being found equally in Southern Queensland and in South Australia, as well 
as in the Northern Territory. The measurements of the bill and wing vary, 
and do not afford distinguishing characters as has been stated [c/. Hartert, 
N. Z., vi., p. 427 (1899)]. A, pulchra Gould is therefore a synonym of A. azurea, 
which ranges over the greater part of Australia, except the west. Mr. Mathews 
c/. N. Z., xviii., p. 285 (1912) recognises no fewer than five subspecies in 
Australia and Tasmania, of which two are described for the first time ! The 
only example of this Kingfisher in the British Museum, from the Aru Islands, 
Wallace Collection, has been referred by Sharpe to A. lessoni. I agree with 
this identification, the colour of the lower back, rump, and upper tail-coverts 
being purplish-blue like the rest of the upper-parts, the under-parts deep 
cinnamon, and the sides of the breast and fianks dark purplish-blue as in 
the so-named A. pulchra.’^ 
The superficiality of this criticism seems self-evident, but it is as well 
to make certainty sure. Apparently aU New Guinea birds would be classed 
as A. a. lessoni, and aU Australian birds as A. a. azurea, though Sharpe, Hartert 
and others had indicated their belief that there were subspecies in Australia. 
Ogilvie-Grant’s statement that A. pulchra Gould was founded on fully mature 
examples of A. azurea is incorrect, as it was given to northern birds, and these 
notably differ from tnature specimens from the south. Ogilvie-Grant’s state- 
ment that it had no geographical significance, being found in 8outh Australia, 
is also inaccurate, as there is no bird in the British Museum (or elsewhere) 
from South Australia that can be confused with typical pulchra, while the 
latter was in the British Museum collection. His further remarks regarding 
the variation in the bill and wing are equally futile, as series show constancy 
in these characters. Again, he marked with an exclamation the information 
that I recognised five subspecies in Australia and Tasmania, overlooking 
my more recent “ List,” which he had before him, where I had listed six. 
All the New Guinea specimens were mcluded under A. a. lessoni, the 
series from South Western New Guinea being regarded as “ indistmguishable ” 
from typical examples from Dorei, Geelvink Bay. “ The only example of this 
93 
