SPINE-TAILED LOG-RUNNER, 
flocks of these birds, mostly about five or six in number, and were always met 
with upon the ground, where they appear to be invariably scratching about 
amongst the fallen leaves, hunting for food, exactly the same as a lot of farm- 
yard fowls. They are extremely shy, upon being disturbed they usually dart 
into cover, such as behind trees, beneath logs, or fallen branches ; in fact, 
anywhere out of sight. I saw many of their loosely constructed dome-shaped 
nests, but none contained either eggs or young. They were all placed near 
the ground, some in lawyer vines, others on top of logs in fallen timber, and 
various situations, and they were composed of sticks and twigs lined with 
moss.” 
The variation in this species and allied forms shows items of much interest. 
All the names given to the species were based on the same specimen or series 
from ITat Hill, New South Wales, so that when I wrote up my “ Reference 
List ” I added : 
Orthonyx temminckii chandleri. 
“ Differs from 0. t. temminckii in having the red on the rump less 
pronounced. Richmond River, New South Wales” ; 
and in my “ List ” 1913 I maintained these two forms. 
It may interest Australians to know that there occurs in New Guinea a 
species so similar that it was named Orthonyx temminckii victoriana by van 
Oort ( Notes Leyden Mus., Vol. 30, p. 234, 1909). Previously the bird from 
Arfak, New Guinea, had been named Orthonyx novceguinece by Meyer, and the 
superficial resemblance to the New South Wales bird is striking. It is the 
same size and similar in coloration but a little darker on the lower back and 
blacker on the upper back and head, less white on the throat and abdomen, 
and flanks darker. That it is specifically distinct is certain from the structural 
characters as the podotheca is booted, instead of being strongly scutellate. 
The wing formula is similar but the first and second primaries are shorter, the 
secondaries much longer equal to the length of the third primary and are all 
softer in texture indicating less power of flight and in addition the tail-feathers 
have stiffer shafts and the barbules are disintegrated and webs narrower. 
Instead of being only subspecific these differences being cumulative deserve 
recognition by a distinct name, especially as the very different Macrorthonyx 
intervenes geographically. 
I therefore propose Papuouthonyx with type species Orthonyx novceguinece 
Meyer, and this should be generically used. There is more difference between 
these species than there is between Gould’s Calamanthus and Hylacola, 
yet these latter have been unhesitatingly accepted since their proposition 
seventy years ago. 
YOL. IX. 
177 
