THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
distinct species, of which the males showed similar coloration, hut of which the 
females were dissimilarly coloured. I have re-examined the matter more 
thoroughly and now more accurately define the species and the correct nomina- 
tion. As usual complications quite unexpected appeared, but I would here 
remark upon my acceptance of species as contrasted with subspecies. Since the 
preceding was written Dr. Hartert has defined his views that “where the males 
of two forms were practically indistinguishable, but the females differed, these 
were very decided subspecies — supposing, of course, that they were geographical 
representatives.” This statement proves that, as I have often indicated, Dr. 
Hartert would not distinguish between a subspecies and a representative species. 
It was due to my deference to Dr. Hartert’ s views that I confused these Pachy- 
cephala and there can be little doubt that his dicta cannot be maintained. Thus 
through such considerations species have been confused, as instance, the 
description of Eopsaltria hilli by Campbell. There is no blame whatever for 
Campbell in making such a mistake, as Gould had also suggested the female 
of Pachycephala melanura would be something like that of P. pectoralis. If 
melanura were only subspecifically separable the female should show a close 
relationship, which it does not, and consequently must be considered a 
distinct species, whether it represents pectoralis in a different region or occurs 
in the same localities. Again, it is possible that these representative species 
would encroach on each other’s territory when the conditions are favourable, 
whereas subspecies could not. The subspecies of Pachycephala pectoralis are 
easily distinguished by means of the females which vary quickly and are 
constant as to locality. The males do not show so much variation nor do 
the subspecific characters appear so constant. Even the Tasmanian form, 
long regarded as a species, shows specimens in which the tail has an indistinct 
black band towards the tip, and as a consequence the mainland form has 
been recorded from Tasmania. The typical subspecies will be known as 
Pachycephala pectoralis pectoralis (Latham). 
New South Wales. 
The synonyms are as already given, all of the older writers. The exact dis- 
tribution and variation of this form is not known to me, as I have seen birds 
labelled New South Wales with the basal portion of the tail grey and lacking 
the olive wash, and from the known variation these may represent local races. 
Thus it is possible that the Richmond and Clarence River birds constitute a 
recognisable race, but series are not at present available for accurate definition, 
while the southern birds may also differ. 
I have distinguished the Victorian bird as 
Pachycephala pectoralis youngi , 
but I find two distinct races occur in that State. Male specimens from Selby 
220 
