THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
there is no original label I now dismiss this skin ; and reject P. r. huttoni 
from our Avifauna. 
On p. 72 I doubted Hull’s suggestion {Emu, Vol. XI., p. 207) that certain 
birds he only saw were certainly assimilis, and in this connection the 
further investigations made by Hull proved my doubt of accepting such 
records, as HuU found they belonged to the present species. 
Thus in the Emu, Vol. XV., Jan. 1916, p. 206, Hull describes Gina- 
thisma cyaneoleuca gen. and sp. nov. from specimens met with in the 
open sea off Ulladulla, New South Wales, commenting : “This bird has 
a remarkable short fluttering flight, quite unhke that of any other members 
of the Pufinidce common to the New South Wales coast.” A flgure of 
the bill accompanied this note. 
In the succeeding number a coloured figure was given (pi. xxxii.) 
and an extended account, but no further detail was added. Though 
Hull disagreed with my identification of previous birds secured, as “ Puffinus 
gavia = Beinholdia reinholdi hyroni,^'* no explicit reason is given. 
It seems here worth while discussing the recent disintegration of the 
Puffinus series and its criticism. 
My first separation was in connection with the present species, for 
which I introduced alone the genus name Beinholdia. I then added 
Neonectris, while simultaneously Iredale introduced Hemipuffinus. This was 
followed by my proposal of Alphapuffinus, and the last to be indicated 
was Calonectris, two earlier names Thyellodroma and Ardenna being revived. 
In making these innovations full value was given to structural characters 
and colour scheme was also recognised. 
This disintegration has been fairly criticised by Oberholser in the 
Auk, Vol. XXXIV., n.s. No. 4, pp. 471-475, Oct., 1917, with the conclusion 
that Calonectris, Ardenna, Thyellodroma and Puffinus are recognised as 
valid genera. Such a result is pleasing, as it is inevitable that with more 
material and better knowledge of the group more genera would have been 
accepted by that worker, who claims a very high place among American 
ornithologists as a systematist. Thus he regards Hemipuffinus as only 
worth subgeneric rank under Ardenna, which is certainly wrong, the 
resemblance being only superficial, the immature showing vahd bill differ- 
ences. Neonectris he merged in Puffinus as well as Alphapuffinus : while 
the latter is very close to Puffinus, the former is superficially different, 
and it is very probable that again we are confronted with convergence 
in superficial features, which do not correctly represent real affinity. As 
Beinholdia was not mentioned, I can only conclude that Oberholser might 
have also lumped it with Puffinus, but if so it would appear to be an 
422 
