( 405 ) 



which they have been written. They contain, to use Mr. Grant's words, the criticism 

 of another ornithologist, " who may have paid special attention to these birds." But, 

 as I have said before, it is not so much the number of errors in quotations, geographical 

 statements, etc., as the scojie of the " Review of the species of the genus Lanius " 

 which I oppo.se. We all make mistakes, but we do not all adhere to the system of 

 systematic study which was reigning in former ornithological times. Our mistakes 

 must be corrected, for the truth for which we work mu.«t come out by mutual efforts ; 

 and it is important that we take a wider view and .study birds in the light of their 

 geographical distribution as far as possible, and that we no longer rely on single 

 charaeter.s, but thoroughly study the birds in all their parts, in order to understand 

 their actual affinities. This is less easy than the old system, and especially 

 geograjihical distribution is sometimes difficult to fully understand, when we do not 

 know the country, its aspect, geological and climatic conditions, and where maps are 

 scarce and bad ; but we must try to do our best, and leave it to the future to correct 

 our errors. And other difficulties, too, stand in our way. Valuable works are 

 published in Russian, a language not understood, as far as I know, by any Western 

 ornithologi.st ; new names are sometimes hidden in the text, not showing in 

 headings ; descriptions are often too short and insufficient, and sometimes taken 

 from single individuals. Our friends should be more careful in creating new names ; 

 tliey should, if forms are closely allied, not describe " new .species " from single 

 examples, and they should boldly show what they do, and not hide their deeds 

 inconspicuously in the letteiiwess. All these troubles I have felt much during the 

 work on the last parts of my book on the Palaearctic Birds, but nevertheless it has 

 been pleasant and fascinating to me, and I look forward with much pleasure to more 

 such work and to more criticism ! 



My work has been aided by the kind help of many friends and authorities of 

 museums. Without this it would have been impossible to come to the conclusions 

 at which I arrived. ]\Iany an hour has been spent in the bird room at the British 

 Museum, where I di.'cussed two or three questions with Mr. Grant ; and I have been 

 able to compare types and series in Paris, Turin, and Florence, in all of which places 

 I have been received with the greatest kindness — by the late Dr. Oustalet and 

 Mons. Mi^n^gaux, by Count Salvadori and Professor Giglioli. My warmest thanks 

 are due to Dr. Bianchi, who generously sent me nearly all the Shrikes in the St. 

 Petersburg Museum. I am much indebted to Dr. Suschkiu for the loan of some of 

 his types, to Professors Reichenow and Brauer in Berlin, Dr. Forbes in Liverpool, 

 Dr. Hoyle in Manchester, Mr. Joseph M^hitaker in Palermo, the late Baron Carlo and 

 bis mother, Baroness von Erlanger, in Nieder-Ingelheim, Dr. Julius von ^NladarAsz in 

 Budapest, Dr. von Lorenz in Vienna, Pfarrer Kleinschmidt in Volkmaritz, Profes.sor 

 Lampert in Stuttgart, Professor Dr. Scliauinsland in Bremen, Count Berlepsch of 

 Berlepsch Castle, Professor Dr. Wilhelm Blasius in Braunschweig. Herrn N. Sarudny 

 in Pskov, for kindly lending specimens in their possession or under their care ; to 

 Dr. Ijouis Bureau, llerrn N. Zarudny, Herrn Dr. llartlaub in Helgoland, Herrn Sergius 

 Buturlin, Dr. Bianchi, Dr. Suschkin, Herrn von Tschusi, Herrn Hilgert, Baron Loudon, 

 and others for kind information, translations, descriptions; and last Ijut not least to 

 Herrn Hellmayr for making comparisons for me in the Paris Museum. 



