THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
“ 0ne 2 ?? (from King River, Northern Territory). Slightly lighter coloured 
than North-western and McArthur River (N.T.) skins. Wing 83 mm. Since 
the article by H. G. Barnard and myself on the ‘ Birds of Rockingham Bay,’ 
an examination of a larger series indicates that the birds in that district are a 
darker race ; wing also larger— 90 mm. It should be stated that Gould’s type 
locality for B. isura is ‘North-west Coast’ ( P.Z.S. , 1840, p. 174), not ‘Port 
Essington,’ as shown on Mathews’s ‘ List,’ p. 186.” It is displeasing to find 
such remarks after all the trouble taken by Witmer Stone to select the types 
in the Gould collection, and publish accurately the definite localities on the 
Gouldian specimens. It is well known that the “ North-west Coast ” of Gould 
covered all from Point Cloates to Port Essington, and only in later years did he 
discriminate between these points. In the present case he relates that Gilbert 
found it abundant in all parts of the Cobourg Peninsula, and though he mentions 
specimens were procured by Sir George Grey he does not give any definite 
locality, simply mentioning “ north coast.” It may be noted also that Gould’s 
“ north coast ” included Queensland, a good instance, which cannot be con- 
tradicted, being Arses kaupi, which has not yet been found elsewhere on the 
north coast. 
Recently Hartert wrote : “In 1903 I united certain Bhipidurce from the 
northern South-east Islands under the name Bhipidura setosa assimilis. I am, 
however, now of the opinion that assimilis , setosa, tenkatei, pallidiceps, butti- 
kof eri, hoedti, bouruensis, obiensis, gularis, cinerea, vidua, kordensis, lenzi, 
niveiventris, isura and nigromentalis are representative subspecies of Bhipidura 
rufiventris Vieill. 1818, which is the oldest name. . . . Moreover, what I 
called fifteen years ago B. setosa assimilis is not a uniform group, but is sepa- 
rable into three subspecies.” This necessitated a re-examination of the above- 
named forms as the species name of the Australian bird was called into question. 
I found another instance of Hartert’s confusion of representative species with 
subspecies, as no Australian ornithologist would recognise some of the birds 
above named as nearly allied to the well-known isura. While kordensis and 
many of the others show no near relationship, some, such as assimilis and gularis, 
are really only subspecies correctly speaking, and the oldest name is the one 
I have used, viz., setosa. As a matter of interest I would draw attention to 
B. javanica (Sparrman) as being also attachable to the medley proposed by 
Hartert, and would consider it impossible to define the above aggregate in 
terms which would not include that form. It may be possible that still more 
representatives could be recognised, but I do not think it would be to the benefit 
of ornithological systematics to degrade all such to the rank of subspecies, 
especially remembering the extraordinarily fine subspecific divisions made in 
Palsearctic forms. Thus a scarcely recognisable subspecies is now split into 
30 
