f 
THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
different habits, as to migration, in different parts of Australia, and consequently 
there is a wide field for research in this respect. 
Two points with regard to the nomenclature of this species require remark. 
Temminck and Laugier in their PI. Ool. d'Ois, IT livr., ( Vol. I.), pi. 102, fig. 2, 1824, 
\ figured a bird which they named Guculus chalcites, a MS. name of lUiger, with 
terra typica, L’Oceanie. This bird is undoubtedly the young of this species, 
but it is impossible to definitely apply it to any race. In order to finally dispose 
of this name I designate Java as type locality of Guculus chalcites Temminck 
and Laugier. The other name is Lamprococcyx modesta Diggles. This is 
mentioned by Ramsay {Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., Vol. II., p. 205, 1876), as known 
to him only by description, and apparently given to the young of L. basalis.^^ 
In answer to the last query I received full information, and later accepted 
Biggies’ name as the subspecific one for the north-eastern form. 
When I stated Guculus chalcites was undoubtedly the young of this species, 
I was misled by the figure alone, which was marked male, but a footnote in 
the text corrected it to female, and there, as the male, the adult of this species 
was also described. Consequently the name remains as given by a synonym 
of basalis. I would add that Gray in the Handl. Gen. Sp. Birds, Vol. II., p. 218, 
1870, cited “ chalcites 111 ” as a synonym of “ lucidus Gm. Austr. and N.Z.” 
and on p. 219 proposed “ Guculus temminchii ” for “ chalcites Tern. P.C. 102.2” 
I have not seen lUiger’s name recorded prior to Temminck’s usage of it, and 
consequently “ G. temminckii Gray ” must be regarded as an absolute synonym 
of ''chalcites Temminck and Laugier ex Illiger MS.,” the last being quoted 
until prior publication is proven. 
Recently a student of the new ornithology has come to the conclusion 
that “ the subspecies theory be discarded as a theory that has outhved its 
usefulness.” One result of his action is to make confusion worse confounded, 
as he has not " considered geographic variation in connection with the other 
variations of species ” and hence lumped as one species three different 
“ realities ” through his muddling method of ignoring subspecies. 
I have relegated subspecies to their proper rank as geographical varieties, 
of species which mutable in themselves are more or less constant when 
geography is considered. First a species must be regarded as a series of geo- 
graphical variations, and then the subspecies be separately criticised for 
sexual, age or individual variation. When this is done it will be found that 
individual variation in one subspecies becomes geographic in the next and the 
same with sexual and age variation. The study of these variations is important, 
and peculiar results may be obtained. 
In the present species the variation observed might be considered as 
sexual, age or individual were geographic subspecies ignored. As a matter 
346 
