1 
THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
I prefer the name C. alhigularis, published in the same article.” For the 
smaller form he then proposed the new name Eurostopus argus. 
The argument produced by Hartert is not conclusive, as, if he were 
able to determine to which species the nesthng belonged, the description 
must have been appHcable to that species alone. Nevertheless, the 
authority of a British Museum Catalogue was all-powerful, and though 
Austrahan ornithologists might rebel, Hartert’s nomination became accept- 
able to extra-hmital workers. Consequently these names were used by me 
in my “ Handlist ” which was based on Sharpe’s “ Handlist.” My first revision, 
undertaken for the preparation of my “ Reference List,” made me doubt the 
aceuracy of Hartert’s association, and I therefore placed C. guttatus as a 
doubtful synonym of E. albogularis. If it had been certain, I should have used 
it, as it had precedence. For my “ List of the Birds of Australia ” I again 
considered it and retained it doubtfully as synonymic, but at this time it had 
lost its importance in this connection, as I had discovered that Temminck’s 
name C. mystacalis had priority over both C. albogularis and C. guttatus. 
My present study has shown, as far as can possibly be expected, the 
absolute recognition of Vigors and Horsfield’s C. guttatus in its pre- 
Hartertian accepted usage for the smaller species. 
Hartert reported that the type of C. guttatus was a nesthng : tliis was 
not at all suggested in the original description, wherein it is stated that 
“the wings are more rounded than in other Goatsuckers; but this apparent 
deviation from the genus is probably owing to the mode in which the 
specimen has been prepared.” As the type is a nestling it shows no 
primaries, and the roundness of the wing is based upon the secondaries. 
It is a beautiful rufous bird, and at the time Hartert wrote the British 
Museum had no series showing the plumage ehanges of the two species. 
One bird, however, referable to the larger species showed a rufous tendency, 
and from this Hartert assigned the nesthng to that form. However, I 
have recently received specimens of the immature male and female of 
the smaller species, which I have described in detail, and these agree so 
minutely with the nestling as to place beyond reasonable doubt the 
identity of this with the smaller species. Pecuharly enough. North, 
usually antagonistic to such changes as that proposed by Hartert, 
acquiesced in this alteration, as he stated the larger species was common 
near Sydney, where Caley’s specimen was procured, wMle the smaller one 
was not. However, the smaller one was known from New South Wales, 
and the conditions now are very different from those prevalent in Caley’s 
time. However, with the specimens I have before me, no other conclusion 
save the one I have arrived at seems possible. 
232 
L 
