THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
feet and appear to be in for a good long fly, when suddenly they drop 
down and always alongside a stick, and they appear to take on the 
appearance of a stick themselves, and are consequently very hard to 
pick out from the surrounding debris. The call is a very weird one 
when heard away back in these scrubs, and is something between a croak 
and a scream, and is uttered at fairly long intervals. It appears to be 
fairly rare.” 
Batey {Emu, Vol. VII., p. 4, 1907) recorded : “ On coming to Sunbury 
(Victoria) in 1846, saw it frequently ; after that year noticed it hunting 
at dusk. Between 1855 and 1860 flushed one from the ground not far 
from our residence. Since then, though moving about much in and out, 
I have never met this bird.” 
This is a rare bird with a small range and there is httle on record 
of its scientific history. It was apparently recognised as a new Nightjar 
by Temminck about the same time as Vigors and Horsfield had diflerenti- 
ated it. The latter’s name was accepted until I showed that the name 
given by the former was pubhshed first. Bonaparte cites a name given 
by Cuvier, who had, probably earher than either of the two above named, 
discriminated it, but he frequently did not publish his results. There is 
apparently yet confusion, as will be noted from Ashby’s notes between this 
and the succeeding species. As few locahsed skins are available its distribu- 
tion is not exactly determined, but it is fairly certain it does not extend 
to New Guinea, as given by Hartert in the Catalogue of the Birds in the 
British Museum, Vol. XVI., p. 608. The genus does not appear to have 
been met with in New Guinea by the recent Dutch and British Expedi- 
tions, the genus Lyncornis being represented instead. Therefore Ogilvie- 
Grant suggests that Eurostopodus astrolabce Ramsay described from South- 
east New Guinea may be a s 5 rnonym of Lyncornis papuensis Schlegel, 
apparently following Salvadori’s determination which is given in a foot- 
note b}'^ Hartert, loc. cit., p. 606. 
In connection with the succeeding species, I comment upon the 
determination of the species called Caprimulgus guttatus by Vigors and 
Horsfield, and which Hartert concluded was the juvenile of the present 
species. 
226 
