Page:The Emu volume 9.djvu/269

 sight of the bush containing the nest and its immediate surroundings, and waited till I was weary. I resolved to go away and return in an hour's time, and as the ground was sandy I would try and steal silently up to the bush, and, if possible, surprise the sitting bird, and procure it before it could slip away. I carried out this plan, and, very cautiously approaching the bush, I peeped into the nest. There was a veritable Amytornis gigantura sitting on the eggs! It flushed with a cry of alarm, but I secured it. It was a male. I waited in vain for the female, as I was most anxious to secure a specimen—there being only two in existence. Both are in the Perth Museum—one the type, described by Mr. A. W. Milligan, and secured by Mr. J. T. Tunney, near Mt. Magnet, Murchison goldfield, and another collected by myself at Lake Austin. I subsequently photographed the nest and eggs in situ, and also the surrounding haunts. (See illustration.) This was the only nest of this rare bird I found. The nest and eggs are new to science, and have been recently described in The Emu (p. 136).

I may note that some time afterwards I visited the same spot again, and heard notes resembling those Amytornis striatus, which I have described in another place as resembling the syllables "Tū-tū-tū." Probably they were uttered by a male of the present species.

Much uncertainty seems to prevail about the identity of this and two other closely allied species. There seems a tendency on the part of certain ornithologists to refer both Amytornis textilis and A. gigantura to one species. In a very interesting letter to Mr. H. L. White, Mr. G. A. Keartland, who accompanied the Calvert Expedition, refers to two species of Amytornis observed in the country at and around Lake Way. One he identifies as A. striatus, and in that I think he is perfectly correct. But his reference to a second species, haunting and observed running about amongst the samphires at Lake Way, has caused me some perplexity. This latter species he refers to A. textilis, despite the fact that Gould described A. macrurus as a larger and more robust form of the latter, and, moreover, its Western representative. I can hardly credit the statement that such a secretive bird as A. gigantura can have been observed amongst the samphires at Lake Way. In my experience it does not frequent such vegetation, but I saw Calamanthus campestris, which has a carriage very much like an Amytornis, in the samphires every time I walked through them. This latter bird has, however, a much shorter tail. As my foregoing notes will illustrate, the difficulty I had in finding the bird alone should be apparent. Mr. Milligan, in describing the types, gives comparative measurements of five species of this genus (Vict. Nat., xviii.. No. 2, June, 1 901), and it will be seen that the dimensions of A. gigantura altogether exceed those of A. textilis, and even Gould's measurements of A. macrurus. Mr. C. G. Gibson, in his article on the "Birds Observed between Kalgoorlie and Eucla" (Emu, vol. ix., p. 73) groups A. macrurus with A. gigantura. There is no reason for this, but until a large series of both supposed species have been collected from various localities in this State, and carefully compared, the question must remain an open one, and it may be just as well to let the two species (?) stand as at present. In any case, the Western birds should not, with our present knowledge, be referred to the smaller and less robust A. textilis. I only hope my observations on the habits of the Lake Way birds, with my photographs of the nest in situ and breeding haunts, will aid in the final settlement of this question.