172 From Magazines, &c. [i/'jan. 



Burchell, Sir Andrew Smith, Anderson, and Layard, as well as 

 enumerating many other workers in the cause. There are 

 several valuable papers in the Jtmrnal, including one by Major 

 Richard Sparrow, M.B.O.U., on the nesting habits of certain 

 South African birds ; some notes by Mr. F. J. Ellemor on the 

 nesting habits of the Red Widow-Bird ; a list of birds collected 

 and observed round Hanover, Cape Colony, by Mr. Guy C. 

 Shortbridge, and a good account of a visit to a colony of Ibis 

 cetJiiopica by Mr. Austin Roberts. The magazine is conducted 

 on the lines of TJie Ibis, and includes four good photo, prints — 

 " Nest of the Lesser Puff-back Shrike," "Nest of Smith's Weaver- 

 Bird," " Nest of Cape Flycatcher," and one of the " Nest of the 



Red Widow-Bird." 



* * * 



Species and Sub-species. — In The Auk for October there 

 is reviewed a paper by Dr. H. L. Clark on " The Limits of 

 Difference in Specific and Sub-specific Distinctions." Dr. 

 Clark's six " fundamental rules " are worth quoting. They 

 are : — 



1. Characters which are not sufficiently conspicuous, so that 

 they can be stated in language or figures of some sort, ought 

 not to be made the basis of a new name. 



2. Differences in dimensions of less than 5 per cent, ought not 

 to be made the basis of a new name. 



3. Characters which cannot be recognised without knowledge 

 of the geographical origin of the specimen ought not to be made 

 the basis of a new name. 



4. Characters which will not distinguish corresponding ages 

 or sexes of two forms ought not to be m.ade the basis of a new 

 name. 



5. Characters which are notoriously variable in a given group 

 ought not, within that group, to be made the basis of a new 

 name. 



6. Characters which may be fairly interpreted either as 

 individual peculiarities or as dichromatic diversity ought not to 

 be made the basis of a new name. 



The Auk's reviewer, Dr. J. A. Allen, criticises these rules as 

 representing a purely "lay" standpoint (Dr. Clark being an 

 expert in echinoderms, but not in birds). But Dr. Allen's 

 reasons why some of them — especially Nos. i and 2 — should 

 not be applied are logically unconvincing, and to any reader of 

 the American bird magazines it is apparent that some such 

 restrictive rules are rapidly becoming necessary, if the word 

 "species" is to have any meaning at all. Most American 

 authorities are endeavouring to simplify nomenclature and to 

 reduce the number of sub-species by a process of elimina- 

 tion. 



