THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
Mr. J. P. Rogers sent me a specimen from Northern Territory, writing : 
“ This species was first seen at Split Rock and is numerous from there onward. 
It is a very tame bird and is the first species of Acanthiza I have seen in North- 
western Australia. Tanami seems to be on the northern edge of the Mulga 
area and this is the northern limit of the species.” As the locality Tanami 
is not well-known it is worth recording that it lies 220 miles south-east by east 
from Hall’s Creek, forty miles inside the Northern Territory. Hall’s Creek 
is 250 miles due south of Wyndham. Recently the Royal Australasian 
Ornithologists’ Union met at Perth and a report on the birds appeared in the 
Emu , by Captain S. A. White, who simply recorded : “ A very common bird met 
with in almost every locality — sometimes high up in the forest trees, at others 
near the ground.” Simultaneously Mr. E. Ashby visited Geraldton and 
reported: “A. apicalis. Numerous at Claremont. Although the examination 
of a cabinet specimen might lead one to treat this bird as a subspecies of A. 
pusilla, the observation of its habits in the bush inclines me to give it full 
specific rank. Its notes are quite distinct from those of A. pusilla ; its tail 
is decidedly longer ; it carries its tail distinctly elevated — not erect or even 
at an angle, but still with a distinct elevation, so different from A. pusilla. In the 
specimen examined the eye was yellow, with a tinge of orange, and not decidedly 
red, as in A. pusilla .” At the same time Alexander published a list of the Birds 
of the Swan River District and included “A. apicalis . Resident. An abundant 
species throughout the district. [The late H. E. Hill recorded A. pyrrhopygia as 
occurring at Guildford, but presumably the record should apply to this species].” 
Previously F. E. Wilson had recorded the Victorian Mallee bird under 
the name A. apicalis ? writing: “The Mallee specimens all had bright red irides, 
while A. pusilla always has rich brown.” 
Such contradictory statements show the confusion existent. 
This little species, the first to be named, is the most variable geographi- 
cally, so that its technical history is extensive and also somewhat complex. 
I will review the names proposed and then the specimens, and collate other 
workers’ views in my attempt to elucidate the facts regarding the species and 
subspecies hereafter associated. 
The species was first figured by White under the name Motacilla pusilla 
from Port Jackson, New South Wales. Of course such a novelty could not 
have been overlooked by the early French collectors and, consequently, we 
find that Vieillot in 1818 described Malurus maculatus, but owing to the con- 
fusion of the collections through the deaths of the voyageurs the locality 
ascribed was only Nouvelle Hollande which proves to be New South Wales. 
Quoy and Gaimard later secured specimens, but these were obtained at Western 
Port, Victoria, and were described as new under the name Saxicola macularia. 
422 
