monument has been left—a reference for all time. No doubt the Government of the day will extend the same courtesy to the Australasian Ornithologists' Union, as it hopes to organize an expedition (composed of Australian and New Zealand members) to explore more ornithologically the romantic southern islands of New Zealand, of the avifauna of which, as Mr. Waite has informed us, our knowledge is yet "very inadequate."
Correspondence.
BIRDS OF THE EAST MURCHISON, W.A.
To the Editors of "The Emu."
Sirs,—In the April issue of The Emu, Mr. Whitlock, in his East Murchison notes, mentions my name in a way which calls for some comment on my part.
With regard to Mr. North's "record,"[1] to some particulars in which Mr, Whitlock takes exception, this certainly needs a little explanation from me. As to the dates, these, probably owing in the first place to carelessness on my part, have got somewhat mixed. On 13th June, 1908, I took nest and eggs of Cindosoma marginatum at Wiluna; the nests taken on 30th August and 1st September of same year were those of C. castanonotum, and were taken about 80 miles east of Kalgoorlie, while on the Transcontinental Railway survey, as Mr. Whitlock points out; how I came to mix these up with C. marginatum I don't know. The "record" also mentions another set of C. marginatum taken by me on 19th August, 1906. This is correct, but the locality given is wrong. "Lake Way, W.A.," should read "Mt. Ida, W.A."
The delay in the publication of this "record" was practically all my fault, as Mr. North had repeatedly written to me for the particulars about the skin and also for the eggs for description. What I take exception to in Mr. Whitlock's article is his direct assumption that I am incapable of taking off a skin well enough for descriptive purposes, and that the skin sent by me to Mr. North from Wiluna was too mutilated for description. I quite agree with Mr. Whitlock in his remarks about the tenderness of the skin, but I maintain that the skin I sent was good enough for the purpose for which it was intended. However, Mr. Whitlock's statements are, in my opinion, more excusable than those of the editors of The Emu, contained in a footnote to the article under discussion; in this footnote the editors not only directly support the assumption that my skin was too mutilated for description, but also, without justification, directly accuse Mr. North of injustice to another collector.
- ↑ "Records of the Australian Museum," vol. vii. (1909), pp. 322-324.—Eds.
