Abstract

Here I: (i) briefly review of the history of the subspecies concept inAustralia; and (ii) use the new Schodde-MasonDirectory of Australian Passerine Birds as the vehicle,to ask if we have now reached a reasonable finality in defining and naming ofgeographic forms (sub-species) in Australian birds. I do this by testing the Schodde & Mason (1999) conclusions against the findings of previousworkers. There is good agreement for differentiated, isolated populations ofspecies (e.g. those inhabiting Tasmania and southwestern Australia). Widelydistributed species, subject to multiple and varying selection pressures indifferent parts of their range, and where variation cannot be expected to comein tidy packages, remain a problem. I conclude that the authors have done agood job in designating and naming geographic variation and forms throughout.No two workers, of course, will completely agree on the level of distinctnessthat merits a name. The Schodde-Mason volume provides an excellent basis for future distributional and molecular studies.