"In these twelve splendid volumes, Mr Mathews has stressed largely the nomenclatural aspect, a phase of ornithology which received little attention from John Gould in the eight folio volumes of his highly valued work, ''The Birds of Australia''. Gould seldom listed a date, and therefore he failed to recognize occasionally that another name listed by him was really older than the name used by him. He was a firm believer in the use of the prior name; this he showed by changing when necessary to an older name. These two great ornithological works which have the same title, and of which Australians are justly proud are thus complementary. Gould emphasized the field and natural history sides, while Mathews stressed the academic and nomenclatural aspects. An Australian student having the use of these fine volumes is well equipped with material on which to base future studies."〔J.A.L. (1928).〕

"It is interesting in view of Mr Mathews's many discussions of nomenclature to see how his attitude on certain points changed as his work progressed. In the opening volume he congratulates the authorities of the British Museum upon their intention of ignoring many of the "useless generic names" of the late Dr Bowdler Sharpe and yet in a few years we see Mr Mathews as one of the most extreme genus splitters that ornithology has known. So again in spite of his vigorous plea for the universal use of subspecies we find him, by the time Vol. V is reached, refusing to give them the full recognition in the text that they had previously received and simply discussing them at the end of each species. And what is far worse placing them in the synonymy where they cannot be distinguished from the real synonyms. The number and treatment of subspecies however are ornithological problems, always subject to personal opinion, with no possible "code" to govern them.

"We have felt that the great amount of space devoted to nomenclatural discussion in the 'Birds of Australia' was unfortunate as most of the facts could usually have been stated without nearly so much verbiage and often the very fact that the author was endeavoring to bring out has been obscured by useless repetition. It seems as if some parts of the text may have been printed from a hastily prepared manuscript without revision. We have discussed Mr Mathews’ great work from a nomenclatural point of view because that seems to have been the author's chief concern in its production and that is the feature that will be remembered in the future. He has, however, collected a great deal of valuable and interesting data on the lives and habits of the birds but as he tells us the adequate life histories of the Australian birds are yet to be written and his aim has been to clear away the technical difficulties in Australian ornithology and set up the species and their names on a permanent basis. This we feel that he has done or at least has presented all of the necessary information on the subject, an achievement of which he may well be proud."〔