WHITE-THROATED THICKHEAD. 
a species soon afterward separated by Swainson as a different genus, and which 
has since been continually maintained. When Quoy and Gaimard met with the 
species they placed it in the genus Lanius, very probably ignorant of Swainson’ s 
proposal as referring to their species. Years afterward Blyth came across a 
specimen in the Calcutta Museum, and as it was an aberrant species, he regarded 
it as an undescribed species and also proposed a new genus for it. 
Then came Gould’s opportunity, and he added no fewer than eight species, 
five of which are still regarded as distinct and valid. Since then Ramsay, 
Masters, North, De Vis, Hartert, A. G. Campbell and Reichenow have described 
new forms. 
It was obvious to workers that some of the forms intergraded and con- 
sequently referred to what we now call subspecies. Long series were necessary 
to value such intergradation, and when I drew up my “ Reference List,” following 
Messrs. Rothschild and Hartert’s action I reduced some accepted species to 
the rank of subspecies. I there made all the White-throated or Yellow-breasted 
forms subspecies and accepted nine, only two of which required names, there 
being seven names valid and six synonyms. Later I named two more forms, 
and Zietz renamed one of the last named, and the Kangaroo Island form “ tenta- 
tively ” indicated by A. G. Campbell was recognised. Thus in my “ List ” twelve 
subspecies were allowed and no change was anticipated. Upon reviewing my 
series, for the purpose of illustrating the species for this work, some discrepancies 
appeared, as although all the males were similarly coloured very different females 
were observed. This necessitated a reconsideration of the values, and I con- 
cluded that the lumping by means of the males alone was wrong, and that more 
than one species had been confused. I thereupon wrote up a short note, which 
I published in the Austral Avian Record, simply recording the facts as now 
understood. 
The main features of this re-grouping are the recognition of the coloration 
of the female as a distinctive specific feature, and the acceptance of representa- 
tive species as of different value from representative subspecies. Recently 
American ornithologists have drawn attention to the fact that colour values are 
of different degrees and consequently need different treatment according to the 
facts. This has never been recognised by European ornithologists when dealing 
with extra-limital birds, and even in connection with some of their own problems 
there may yet prove to be errors. In connection with the present species 
Gould’s conclusions read : “It would seem that the whole extent of the southern 
coast of Australia is inhabited by the present species, for on comparing adult 
males from New South Wales, South Australia, and Swan River, I find that 
they do not present any material differences ; the apical half of the tail is 
blackish-brown in all, and the colouring of the under -surface of the richest 
vol. vm. 
217 
