RAVEN. 
Corvus mariance tasmanicus Mathews. 
“ Differs from G. m. rmriance in its much longer bill, 67 mm. ; tjrpical mariance 
58-60 mm.” 
Tasmania. 
At the same time as this was published, Ogilvie-Grant was engaged in 
preparing the Catalogue of Birds' Eggs in the British Museum, and separating 
the Kavens’ from the Crows’ eggs examined the birds and concluded that Sharpe 
was wrong, and although the bases of the feathers of the type of Gcrrvus coronoides 
were whitish, they were not snow-white, and that it was a Raven and not a 
Crow as generally understood. He was about to name the Crow as a new 
species when I drew his attention to my published account. He thereupon 
criticized that from the view-point of a lumper and pubhshed his account, which 
was reprinted in the Emu. He admitted three species, but used the name 
Conus coronoides for the Raven, the name Corvus cecilce for the Crow, and 
Corvus bennetti for the Small-billed Crow or Jackdaw. He wrote: “ I am glad 
to say that he (jVIr. Mathews) now entirely agrees with me on all the main 
points at issue concerning the Austrahan Corvidce, and their synonymy, as given 
below,” This was not accurately worded, but I did not wish to enter into 
a controversy, as most of the points were matters of opinion, not of facts. 
It seems, however, not quite true that Sharpe made the mistake in considering 
Vigors and Horsfield’s type, which he had before him, as a Crow, whereas it 
was the Raven, according to Ogilvie-Grant. As a matter of fact the bases of 
the feathers are white, and I think the matter cannot be settled by examination 
of it alone, but that a series of these birds should be collected near Sydney, 
say fifty, without any selection and sent to the British Museum for comparison. 
I think until then the matter cannot be definitely determined, and consequently 
have followed Ogilvie-Grant’s determination, without prejudice, until a final 
adjudication of the type-specimen with a series. 
Consequently, I am using the species names proposed by Ogilvie-Grant 
in order to avoid further confusion, but note that I do not consider the matter 
at all settled. As above noted, I decided not to interfere at that time, but 
endeavoured to procure specimens to satisfy myself upon the points at issue. 
Unfortunately through this bird being so common and injurious, I was unable 
to get much satisfaction, my correspondents generally feeling there was more 
interest in searching for new birds’ eggs, etc., than killing and preserving Common 
Crows. 
Meanwhile, another comphcation was introduced by the action of a young 
German ornithologist, who, working upon the birds of the Moluccas, reviewed 
the Crows of Australia and lumped all the three species into one. This review 
was published in a German periodical during the war, the data having been 
399 
