THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
however, stated u Artemius albiventris Gould, a good species in which the 
under tail-coverts are white both in the young and in the adults. Localities : 
Herbert River, Rockingham Bay and Gulf District.” 
Reference to the original description given by Vieillot showed that 
the name cinereus was given to a bird from Timor and that such a bird did 
occur at Timor. Although Gould said he could not distinguish specific 
characters the Timor bird was recognised as a distinct species under the 
name perspicillatus Bonaparte. The specimens showed the description to 
be applicable to the Timor bird, and I concluded that cinereus Vieillot should 
be used for it and perspicillatus be regarded as a synonym, and that the 
Australian cinereus needed a name. I, therefore, proposed Artamus 
tregellasi as a new species, describing the bird from Rockingham, South- 
west Australia. The series, although numerous, was not sufficient to 
determine the exact variation, but I could not regard any of the named 
Australian forms as distinct species, especially as all local workers had 
differently concluded. In my “Reference List” I therefore arranged the forms 
thus : — 
Artamus melanops melanops Gould. 
Interior (South Australia and New South 
Wales). 
Artamus melanops hypoleucus Sharpe. 
Queensland. 
Artamus melanops tregellasi Mathews. 
South-west Australia. 
Artamus melanops florencice Ingram. 
Northern Territory. 
Artamus melanops venustus Sharpe. 
North-west Australia. 
With the alteration of the genus name to Austrartamus these were 
admitted without comment, save the addition of Victoria to the first 
named, in my List in 1913. 
In 1914, Hellmayr published an account of the Birds of Timor, but 
continued the usage of A. perspicillatus for the Timor Bird without comment 
on my action. I, therefore, drew attention (Austral Av. Rec., Vol. II., 
pt. 5, p. 105, Sept. 24, 1914) thus : “ Hellmayr also on p. 41 has used Artamus 
perspicillatus Bonaparte for a Timor Wood-Swallow. .For an Australian 
species, Artamus cinereus Vieillot was commonly used until I rejected it on 
account of its description from Timor and my inability to separate from 
the descriptions Vieillot’s and Bonaparte’s species. Hellmayr does not 
discuss my action, so I can only conjecture that he has overlooked this also.” 
254 
