THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
Mellor and White note that on Flinders Island they were “ met with in 
pairs, and from the well worn state of their plumage apparently they had 
finished nesting some time previously. There is little or no variation between 
these birds and the Tasmanian specimens.” 
Macgillivray’s notes read : “ Numerous throughout the Gulf country, 
and during the winter months only at Cape York, where they assemble in 
large flocks prior to their departure. After September only an occasional 
bird is noted.” 
Campbell and Barnard wrote from Cardwell : “ Cuckoo-Shrikes were 
common, and were often seen in small flocks. There is no appreciable 
difference (save in size) between the Cardwell bird and the familiar southern 
Black-faced species. These birds were not observed at first at Cardwell, but 
were noted later in small flocks, as were seen at Mackay during July.” 
As related previously, Gould stated that probably there were different 
species confined to geographical areas, each representing the other, confused 
as one species under the name G. melanops. He indicated the Tasmanian 
form as easily recognisable under the name G. parvirostris, the name signifying 
the differential feature. However, I noted that when he had described G. 
parvirostris he had given as locality “ New South Wales,” and that it was 
only after he came to the conclusion that Tasmanian birds had small bills 
that he assigned that locality to his previously described species. I therefore 
placed G. parvirostris as a synonym of the typical ( melanops ) form and re- 
named exactly the Tasmanian race. However, when Witmer Stone examined 
the Gould collection, he concluded as the birds labelled G. parvirostris came 
from Tasmania that should be regarded as the type locality. As the item 
has proved to be of no consequence whatever, the earliest name of all having 
been given to the Tasmanian form, I have accepted Stone’s action. 
Consequently, both Gould’s and my own names become synonyms of the 
earliest name ; while melanops, the previously accepted species name, becomes 
the subspecific one for the eastern continental form. It may, however, be 
as well reiterated here that Gould’s actions in connection with some of his 
earlier and dubiously distinguished species were not beyond reproach. The 
fact that the specimens in the Gould Collection, all labelled parvirostris, came 
from Tasmania, does not prove that he so named the Tasmanian bird. It 
was quite commonly a practice of Gould, as well as of his contemporaries, to 
displaoe what we now consider a type by a better specimen when such was 
received, and the latter bird was not unfrequently marked as if it had been 
the original bird studied. In connection with the previous species I have 
noted the present confusion regarding the location of Gould’s types through 
this misplacement of ideas. It is probable that many of the specimens at 
120 
