THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
luck in finding its eggs, though I was very keen on the quest. It is not the 
first time I have been disappointed in a locality where the bird has not been 
uncommon. I am inclined to think we have much to learn respecting its 
breeding habits.” 
H. L. White {Emu, Vol. XIV., p. 150, 1915) gives only three foster-parents 
for this Cuckoo, viz., Neosericornis lathami, Chtkonicola sagittata and Pyrrholcemus 
hrunneus. The egg seems to show relationship with the Bronze Cuckoos, so that 
criticism of the nestling might assist in determining its exact place, which 
superficial features suggest. I am keeping on emphasising these points as I 
find so little is known that every item would help, and it must be conceded 
that the egg-structure is quite a useful aid even in this group noted for the 
variability of its eggs. 
This interesting species was described by Gould and his name must be used. 
It is an interior bird which appears to be pushing its way coastward. Notwith- 
standing its distinct appearance it has shared with the other Cuckoos unnecessary 
confusion as to its nomination. When the “ Watling ” drawings were examined 
in 1843 by Gray, Strickland and Gould, apparently one of them wished the 
acceptance of Guculus palliolatus Latham, which Gould denied. Cabanis and 
Heine, however, utilised the Lathamian name, citing Gould’s as a synonym. 
From this citation errors arose, though such should never have happened, as Gould 
in his Handbook definitely stated : “ That this bird is not identical with the 
Guculus palliolatus of Latham, as supposed by MM. Cabanis and Heine, is, in 
my opinion, quite certain ; Latham’s description does not agree with it in any 
particular ; besides which it is not likely that the bird, which is strictly confined 
to the interior of the country, could have been sent to England at the period at 
which he wrote ; it is even now extremely rare in our collections.” 
This explicit statement was ignored by SheUey in the Gatalogue of the Birds 
in the British Museum, Vol. XIX., p. 279, 1891, who called the species Misocalius 
palliolatus, apparently without reference at all to Latham’s description, which 
states : “ This is nearly twelve inches long . . . the crown full of feathers and 
as far as the eyes on each side black . . . tail very short. . . .” Even as 
Gould stated, this description disagrees in detail, yet on Shelley’s confirmation 
the incorrect name was used until North pointed out its inapplicability. 
Simultaneously I examined the Wathng drawing and saw at once it had nothing 
to do with this bird, though Sharpe without any consideration had recorded 
that it was the Black-eared Cuckoo. I have not recognised the drawing, but 
if it were to be assigned to any Cuckoo it would much better agree with 
Microdynamis parva (Salvadori), a New Guinea bird, but at present I consider 
it quite indeterminable. 
I separated two subspecies in 1912 and these have been maintained in my 
336 
