THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
by Alcedo dea Linne, 1766 not 1758 = Tanysiptera nais Gray. The 
genus name Tanysiptera was introduced for this species. Here the bill 
does not show any upward tendency, but is decurved. The wing is 
more rounded, the first primary shorter than the secondaries and exceeded 
by the seventh primary ; the intervening five primaries are not much 
longer, the second equal to the sixth, the third, fourth and fifth subequal 
and longest. The tail-feathers are quite different, being long and broad : 
the tail is very much graduated, the outer pair being half the length 
of the pair next to the central ones : the central pair are three times as 
long as this next pair, which are equal to the wing in length. The 
central pair are very narrow with a small spatule at tips, but do not 
twist and cross. 
The species T. caroUnce Schlegel is a peculiar form. It has the 
bill as above, the wing is more roimded, the first primary being less 
than the ninth and shorter than the secondaries. The tail is similar 
to that of the preceding, but is shorter than the wing, while the central 
pair are comparatively short, being less than twice the length of the 
next pair, and a large racket is present at the tips. I am indicating 
these differences to show that a new subgeneric name is necessary — 
Edquista 
for this species alone. The coloration is very peculiar and as far as is 
known is uniform in the immature and adult. In the preceding forms 
the immature is very different from the adult in plumage, in some 
cases the female being also less brightly coloured. 
It seems quite possible that later this group will be given family 
rank, and then the divisions above noted will be accorded full generic 
value, while possibly many subspecies will be also raised. Thus, when 
first the different forms were recognised, they were all granted specific 
rank, as a few specimens only were available and these from diverse localities, 
the plumages were quite imperfectly understood. At the present time 
the latter are not surely comprehended. Hartert, in his subspecific schemes, 
then lumped a large number of the so-called species into one huge species, 
and this conclusion is now called into question. As we are once more 
dealing with an old fixed group, the small differences observed may 
be really specific, but I cannot dogmatise on this point with the present 
series of skins. However, there seems recently to have been a slight 
lack of care in the consideration of the Moluccan-New Guinea forms 
by Rothschild and Hartert as regards the naming of the species, and 
it is possible this may also have occurred in the criticism of the sub- 
specific factors. Thus, they accepted the fact that Alcedo dea Linne 
198 
