LEADEN FLYCATCHER. 
lores, which we sure not able to separate from rubecula of New South Whies. 
The wings of the few males (two very worn ones and three in fresh plumage) 
measure 75 to at least 78 mm. M. rubecula melvillensis and broomei Math, 
are concinna, and, in our opinion, in no way separable. Then there is a form 
of M. rubecula from British New Guinea. This form we must separate as a 
new subspecies. The lores are grey, even lighter than in typical rubecula, in 
fact, not much darker than the crown, the upper side a shade paler, especially 
on the crown. Wings 71, 73, 74.5 mm. The female has the throat perhaps 
of a darker brown, the upper side rather pale, wings 71, 72, 73.8 mm. The 
Myiagra from Sudest and Rossel Islands have slate-coloured lores and frontal 
line (not black as in concinna !) and the males are exactly like the latter, except 
that the head, especially the throat, is generally somewhat darker, almost 
steel-blue. But the females have the jugular region rather darker, browner, 
the chin in contrast, as a rule, more whitish, sometimes quite white. This 
latter character varies in rubecula, but the chin is almost always less whitish, 
sometimes quite as brownish as the jugulum. We, therefore, recognise at 
present of this group of Myiagra : 
Myiagra rubecula rubecula (Lath.). 
Victoria, N.S.Wales and Queensland as far 
north as Cape York. 
Myiagra rubecula papuana R. & H. 
South-eastern New Guinea. 
Myiagra rubecula sciurorum R. & H. 
Rossel and Sudest, and probably St. Aignan, 
Louisiade group. 
Myiagra concinna concinna Gould. 
Northern Territory and N.W. Australia. 
Myiagra concinna yorki Math. \ 
Northern Queensland, from Cape York to at 
least as far north as Mackav.” 
I have quoted this extract as an example of splitting and criticism by 
extra-limital workers. Had I ventured to suggest two species, I would probably 
have received even severer criticism than in the above. I also cannot under- 
stand splitters who cannot see the “ much greyer upper-surface ” separating 
birds because they are “ perhaps ” of a darker brown and “ a shade paler.” 
In the preceding account there are the usual oversights ; as I have just pointed 
out Gould never distinguished concinna in writing, and Platyrhynchos ruficollis 
\ ieillot is not referable to this species, as was pointed out by Salvadori forty 
years ago ; and as Rothschild and Hartert are specialists in the literature of 
New Guinea birds this should have been known to them. 
VOL. IX. 
49 
