BROWN TIT. 
Central Australia, as being much paler and having a smaller bill, viz., 11 mm.” 
The form from Myponga, South Australia, was then named Acanthiza pusilla 
samueli as it was much darker brown above, and the vent and flanks of the same 
colour. Then I followed with Acanthiza pusilla jayi from the MacDonnell Ranges, 
comparing it with Acanthiza pusilla consobrina as being paler above and in 
having the thighs buff-coloured. A further consideration of the species now 
induced me to separate the forms into two species (still leaving Acanthiza 
ewingii as distinct), and I referred to Acanthiza albiventris ( = Acanthiza pyrr- 
hopygia Gould, not Vigors and Horsfield) the subspecies venus , hamiltoni, con- 
sobrina (of which I s&nkjayi as a synonym) whitlocki and also the species tanami . 
Since then I have added two more subspecies, Acanthiza pusilla peroni from the 
Peron Peninsula, Shark’s Bay and Acanthiza pusilla bunya from the Bunya 
Mountains, Queensland, the former being separated from Acanthiza pusilla 
apicalis in “ being lighter, almost grey above, and in having the flanks 
much lighter coloured and in not having a white spot on the inner webs of 
the tail-feathers, wing 50 mm., and the latter from Acanthiza pusilla pusilla in 
having the feathers on the forehead more rufous and the rump more cinnamon, 
and also lighter on the back.” 
It might be concluded that with twenty-four names available every sub- 
species would have been discriminated and a large number of synonyms probably 
to record. When a review such as this one is undertaken it is commonly found 
that a well-marked and well-known form has been overlooked and is nameless, 
and this is so in this case. I have been perplexed over two matters, the specific 
distinctions of Gould’s ewingii and pyrrhopygia . It is difficult to recognise the 
former and when the matter is investigated complicating factors intervene. 
The latter is much more difficult as certain forms are so abundantly distinct that 
the association of the two seems absurd, but they merge easily in different areas 
that it is difficult to separate them. I am here considering them all as one species 
but will indicate the forms that may be separated, and then it will be seen that 
all the “ pyrrhopygia ” series are Central ones and all the accepted “ pusilla ” 
forms are coastal. 
I have recorded the differences accepted by Legge and North for the species 
ewingii and these I find are individual and apparently sexual. Thus I have a 
pair of Tasmanian birds from Coll. Thompson secured at the same place, Mount 
Arthur, on the same day and labelled by the collector as the same species and 
these show decided differences in an unexpected manner. I have checked these 
with continental specimens from many localities and find similar differences 
among those so that the form ewingii cannot be considered of specific value 
and may only be individual, but from literature and correspondents’ reports 
it maybe a highland subspecies, thus Mr. Edwin Ashby has written me: “Why 
427 
