346 CRITICAL NOTICES OF NEW PUBLICATIONS. 



British Oology ; being Illustrations of the Eggs of British Birds, with 

 Figures of [those of] each species, as far as practicable, drawn 

 and coloured from Nature : accompanied by descriptions of the 

 materials and situation of their nests, number of eggs, &c. By W, 

 C. Hewitson. In two monthly 8vo. numbers, each containing four 

 lithographic prints. Newcastle-upon-Tyne and London. Nos. 

 1 to 20. 



This beautiful work, of which the twentieth number has just ap- 

 peared, far surpasses any other that has yet been published on eggs. 

 The plates, which are drawings on stone by the author, coloured by Mr. 

 J. Stand ish, of London, are admirably executed. It would be useless 

 to criticise any of them, as all are equally well done, and are, in fact, 

 perfect fac-similes of the originals. Where the eggs of any species are 

 subject to variety, two, and even three, specimens are given : although 

 this somewhat extends the work, yet the use of it is manifest j for in 

 Lewin's " Birds of Britain," where only one egg of each species is 

 given, it is often impossible to find out to what bird an unknown egg 

 belongs, and the figures in that work are generally miserably executed, 

 although both these and the figures of birds are excellent for the time at 

 which they were published (1795 — 1800). We accordingly hailed with 

 delight the appearance of a new work devoted exclusively to eggs. 



The descriptions, though generally accurate and written in a pleasant 

 style, are, in our opinion, too short. Mr. Loudon, in a notice of this 

 work (Mag. Nat. Hist. Vol. V. p. 699), suggests that it would be " an 

 excellent means of acquiring a mass of authentic facts on British 

 Oology, were the author now to announce that he will publish, at the 

 conclusion of the work, whatever facts, derived from personal observa- 

 tion, his subscribers may please to communicate unexpensively to him, 

 if supplementary, or even controversial, to those already advanced in the 

 work." But would it not be preferable to place such remarks as he may 

 receive, under their proper heads in the body of the work ? Supple- 

 ments are always inconvenient for reference, and should, therefore, be 

 avoided if possible. 



There is one thing in this work against which we must enter our 

 decided protest, and that is, the placing on the same plate the eggs of 

 birds belonging — according to the modern system — to entirely distinct 

 genera ; as for instance, those of Coccothraustes vulgaris (Will.) and 

 Pyrrhuia vulgaris (Temm.) The eggs of C. vulgaris and C. chloris* 

 should of course have come on one plate, and those of P. vulgaris and 

 P. enucleator on another. Let it be understood, however, that we do 

 not object to having the eggs of birds of different genera on the same 

 plate, provided each of those genera contains but one species, but only 

 where there are two or more. We are really sorry that Mr. Hewitson 

 should mar his beautiful and useful work by a fault which might so easily 

 be avoided. t We must also remark that the author has adhered too 

 much to the system of Linnaeus and the venerable Dr. Latham (now in 

 his ninety-fifth year), which, though a lofty and comprehensive arrange- 

 ment, and well suited for rendering the acquirement of Natural History 

 easy, and although it clearly proves the superior talents and genius of its 

 founders, yet is not sufficiently exact for scientific purposes, and has 



* The author most unaccountably keeps the Green Grosbeak in the genus Frin- 

 gilla, while he very properly removes the Haw Grosbeak into Coccothraustes. 



t Selby has, in some instances, fallen into the same error, in his splendid '* Illus- 

 trations of British Ornithology ;" but his masterly classification and excellent 

 letter-press atone for all such defects. 



