180 PROCEEDINGS OP THE ACADEMY OP 



termined iu the case of the British Museum specimen. A speci- 

 men in the Philadelphia Academy represents the same thing. 



1871. Gray, Hand-list, iii. pp. 98, 99. Mr. Gray retains the 

 Spheniscidee in the unnatural association with the Alcidee that we 

 have already been forced to criticize adversely. The three genera 

 he adopts appear to be well founded, the author here showing the 

 same admirable conservatism that guides his recognition of full 

 genera throughout the work ; but we think that some of the species 

 retained under subdivisions of his most extensive genus, Eudyptes, 

 are more different from each other than they are from species of 

 the other genera; and in this respect some change seems to be 

 desirable. But in the determination of the species Mr. Gray is 

 certainly wide of the mark ; assuredly, there are not nineteen of 

 them, as he gives. The list is much more useful as a guide to 

 one's own research than as a model to be copied. At the same 

 time, the synonymical discriminations are so accurately made that 

 little or no confusion results from the redundancy of species. 

 The only point concerning which we are at issue in the matter is 

 that Mr. Gray relegates chrysocome, Forst., to catarractes, leav- 

 ing his pachyrhyncha as the tenable name of a certain species, 

 whereas we agree with Dr. Schlegel, that chrysocome, Forst., is 

 different from catarractes, and is the prior name of what Gray 

 calls pachyrhyncha. The following reductions in the list appear 

 to be required : 



No. 10,806 to be united with No. 10,805. 



No. 10,804 to be united with No. 10,803. 



Nos. 10,802, 10,800, 10,199, 10,797 to be united with 10,790. 



No. 10,794 to be united with 10,793, and one of the s3 r nonyms 

 of 10,791 to be the name of 10,793. The valid numbers are there- 

 fore 10,790, 10,791, 10,792, 10,793, 10,795, 10,796, 10,798, 10,801, 

 10,803, 10,805, 10,807, 10,808. 



1871. Hyatt, Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. This is, we believe, 

 the author's first appearance as an ornithologist ; but he shows 

 the trained naturalist here as elsewhere, bringing to bear upon the 

 subject the same qualities that have distinguished him in another 

 department of zoology. There is a certain freshness and origi- 

 nality in his treatment of the family that contrast by no means 

 unfavorably with more conventional writings of practised ornitho- 

 logists, and, in looking from a new stand-point, he has caught 

 sight of some things that persons accustomed to the birds have 



