THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
and broader. Individually these items differ, but they are quickly recognisable 
when sexed series are laid out for comparison. In the Austr. Mus. Spec. Cat., 
No. 1, Vol. II., I observe that North has noted these differences : my 
own results were achieved before consultmg North’s work. I have recorded, 
as many others have done, the very uneven quality of North’s book, as may 
be seen in this item rather weU. Thus, under D. leachii he gives the above 
novel observation and fairly discusses the relationships of the forms D. cervina, 
D. occidentalis, etc., dealing rather fully with them and accurately. 
Yet under the closely allied species D. gigas he makes httle of the differences 
recorded, and altogether ignores the existence of a form he himself had 
previously named, nor does he apologise in any way either for its omission 
or for his (incorrect) earlier differentiation. 
It is remarkable, and I do not believe that much emphasis has been 
laid upon the facts, that this species differs sexually while D. gigas does not, 
and that much more variation exists in this : that its range is northern 
and extra-Austrahan, while D. gigas is southern and does not occur outside, 
though hving at the extreme northern point, and not being represented in 
Tasmania. The genus is practically thus confined to Austraha, while being 
absent in the extreme south-west and Tasmania. 
When Gould began his Folio Birds of Australia he proposed as a new 
species Dacelo cervina. No locality was given, and he then went to Australia. 
When he came back he utilised his name for the north-western form of leachii, 
which seems to be the correct position. He still maintained it as specifically 
distinct, but it was soon regarded as only a subspecies. Meanwhile, how- 
ever, Gould added another species, D. occidentalis, from the north-west 
of Australia, cervina being regarded as the Port Essington form. 
When Sharpe dealt with the birds collected by the naturalists of 
H.M.S. “Alert,” he went into much detail with regard to the relationsliip 
of the forms and, discussing cervina and occidentalis, determined the former 
as a subspecies only, synonymising the latter. In the Catalogue of the Birds 
in the British Museum (Vol. XVII., pp. 206, 207) this usage was continued, 
but the present-day strict geographical subspecies was not recognised. Thus 
birds from Cape York were catalogued as Dacelo cervina, while a specimen 
from Possession Island, Endeavour Strait, was ranked under D. leachii. 
The south-eastern New Guinea form was also regarded as a subspecies only. 
In 1899 Hartert reported D. leachii from Cape York, concluding it was 
typical at that locality and not cervina. Later he recorded D. 1. cervina 
from North-west Austraha and Northern Territory, writing that aU the 
birds were typical “ cervina^"* 
Ramsay, as long ago as 1888, had concluded : “ Dacelo cervina, 
138 
