RUFOUS-BREASTED SHRIKE-THRUSH. 
— respectively the supposed habitats for gouldi and griseata — is extremely 
doubtful. Both names should be 4 decently forgotten. ’ ” 
I have already given the description and facts, and would point out that 
Gray’s two species were described from Brown’s River and Cape York 
respectively, and the specimens from Barnard Isles and Dunk’s Island only 
referred to the species differentiated. 
Ramsay had written under the name 44 C. parvula ” from Rockingham 
Bay, the type locality of Gould’s C. parvissima : 44 1 noticed that individuals 
of this species are much more highly coloured and deeper in tint than those 
I obtained from the Richmond and Clarence Rivers in New South Wales.” 
This is quite true and in agreement with Gray’s gouldii, while Campbell has 
stated of the Moa Island bird, 44 lighter coloured . . than the more 
southern form ( rufigaster ),” thus confirming Gray’s griseatus. 
When Rothschild and Hartert monographed this group as regards New 
Guinea in 1903 (Nov. Zool., Vol. X., pp. 99-101), they were ignorant of the 
Australian forms, writing : 44 We have a good series from Queensland and N.W. 
Australia (? ? ?), but it is possible that they are also several forms in Australia.” 
They described the S.E. New Guinea form as differing from the typical 
N.W. New Guinea bird in its 44 much paler, less rufous underside and lighter 
throat. The upper-surface is generally a shade more olive, less rufous,” and 
they regarded the Australian form as differing from this S.E. New Guinea 
bird as having always a much paler, generally more greyish upperside, lighter 
and more uniform light buff throat and apparently paler bill.” 
The majority of Queensland birds are darker than the New Guinea birds, 
the Cairns birds being especially dark, so apparently Rothschild and Hartert 
were using other specimens (? parvula from N.W. Australia ?) for comparison. 
