VoL i«£ V '] KINGHORN, Notes on Two Pigeons 289 
tropical scrubs of Cape York, and that it is entitled to a place 
on our “Check List.” 
THE RED-KNOB PIGEON. 
The discovery of the Red-knob Pigeon ( Globicera rubric era) 
dates back to 1826, when Lesson, who received a specimen from 
New Ireland, thought it to be Columba pinon, of Quoy and 
Gaimard, and recorded it as such in Voyage Coquille, Zool. I., p. 
342, 1826. Later Lesson’s bird was found to differ generically 
from Quoy and Gaimard’s specimen, and so Bonaparte described 
it as Globicera rubric era in Comp. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris, 
XXXIX., p. 1073, 1854. The same year Cassin purchased a 
pigeon in Europe which bore a locality label “North Australia,” 
and not having seen Bonaparte’s description, described it as a 
new species under the name Carpophaga lepida, in the Proc: 
Acad. Rat. Sci. Philadelphia, p. 230, 1855..(Dec. 1854). Some 
time later Gray, Cat. Birds Tropical Islands, p. 41, 1859, re¬ 
corded this name as being synonymous with Globicera rubric era. 
Many authors, including Wallace, Salvadori, Finsch, Tristram, 
and Sclater, writing in the Ibis from the year 1865 onwards, and 
in Proc. Zool. Soc. London, from 1877 onwards, received speci¬ 
mens from many of the islands of the Pacific, and the conclusions 
arrived at by Salvadori, as far as its distribution was concerned, 
were to the effect that it inhabited most of the islands of the 
Pacific between the Savage Islands and the East Papuan group. 
Australian Record 
^ It must be clearly understood that the only specimen of 
Globicera rubricera ever recorded from Australia was the one 
purchased in Europe by Cassin, and described as Carpophaga 
lepida. The label must have been rather indefinite, otherwise 
authors would not have queried the record, as Salvadori did in 
Brit. Mus. Cat. Birds, XXI., p. 179, 1893. With this excep¬ 
tion no other specimen of the species has been collected nearer 
to Australia than the Bismarck Archipelago, which is a long way 
from our shores. Furthermore, unlike the previous species, it 
has not been found in New Guinea, though several well organised 
parties have collected there. As Cassin’s bird undoubtedly bore 
the label “North Australia,” I presume that there was a mis¬ 
take. This might easily have occurred through the specimen 
having been inadvertently misplaced, eventually being found 
among some collections from North Australia. In support of 
this contention, I would like to say that such mistakes have 
occurred on the other side of the world, on more than one 
occasion, in the past, in respect to collections of reptiles and 
fishes from Pacific areas. In one instance several Australian 
lizards were wrongly recorded as being from* South Africa. 
In view of the above, I have good reason to doubt that Cassin’s 
bird was found in Australia, and,, under the circumstances, think 
that it would be a wise move on the part of the Check List Com¬ 
mittee if they either leave Globicera rubricera off the list, or, at 
least, place it within the square brackets which are being allotted 
to doubtful records. 
