THE BTKDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
Adult female. Similar to the adult male. Cape York, 26th of April, 1911. 
In the Victorian subspecies the female seems to have more rufous on the top of 
the head. 
Immature. Resemble the adult in the general appearance. 
Nest. A hole in a tree. 
Eggs. Clutch, two to four, white, 39-47 mm. by 33-34. 
Breeding-season. September to December or January. 
When Somierat’s Voyage to New Guinea was published, he stated that he 
met with two large Kingfishers in that country, and gave figures. One of 
these he termed the “ Grand Martin-pecheur de la NouveUe Guinee,” and 
gave a plate of the bird and also a description. The plate accurately agrees, 
as well as ancient descriptions and figures went, with the present species save 
in the shape of the bill, to which no attention had been paid. The description 
is also quite good and both have been commonly determined as absolutely 
applicable to this bird. The extraordinary item is that the bird does not 
occur in New Guinea, yet there is no other bird at all like this one. I have 
long considered this matter without arriving at a reasonable solution. It has 
been suggested that the inhabitants of New* Guinea may have had a captive 
bird brought back from a foray on North Australia, but that idea seems 
impracticable. This was put forward, but at the time Sonnerat travelled 
East Australia was not known to Europeans, and this species does not occur 
in the north, with which the Malays were in contact. At that locality a 
closely allied species which differs in the male having a wholly blue tail, 
while the female has a barred tail as in the present, is common. That species 
has the wing-coverts blue, while the present species has them brown, as in 
Sonnerat’s description. As the bill is drawn so badly, it is suggested that 
there may be inaccuracies also in the description, and there is a possibility 
that the Malays might have procured the other species, while there seems 
no probability with regard to this one. No certainty whatever can be 
achieved at present, and I cite all the names in connection with Sonnerat’s 
species with question marks to keep attention on this item. When tlie 
species was figured in the Planch. Enlum., probably from a specimen brought 
back by Captain Cook’s party, the same erroneous locality was emphasised. 
When Latham prepared his General Synopsis of Birds (Vol. II., p. 609, 
1782) the Great Brown Kingfisher was included : a good description was given 
and the birds were said to have been in the collection of Sir Joseph Banks, 
“ said to have come from New Guinea^ whence Sonnerat figured the bird.” 
Phillips, in the Voyage to Botany Bay, 1789, fully described the Great Brown 
Kingfisher on p. 287, and then gave a plate, concluding : “ This species 
120 
