of the B. M. Catalogue of Birds. 393 



ornithology. It would be unreasonable to expect that the 

 volumes of a series so wide-reaching and extensive^ and 

 necessarily the work of various authors, should be exactly 

 equal in exhaustiveness or accuracy, still less that in the 

 present state of our knowledge, all should be in accord as 

 to the delimitation of the various groups, whether of families 

 or genera. On this point the writers of the later volumes 

 on the Passeriformes are undoubtedly at a disadvantage. 

 Their predecessors could pick and choose, and eliminate from 

 their scheme every anomalous form, relegating it, if not too 

 late, to the Timelines or elsewhere. The writer of an early 

 volume might lay down his diagnosis of family, subfamily, 

 or genus, and gracefully return into Dr. Giinther's hands 

 every proffered species which does not shape its first pri- 

 mary, its culmen, or the scales of its tarsi according to the 

 statute in that case made and provided. But a day of re- 

 tribution comes. The waste-paper basket must be cleared. 

 The unfortunate exiles, who have been passed, like vagrants 

 under the old poor-law, from parish to parish, must find a 

 home somewhere ; and the task of finding it falls to the 

 compiler of some later volumes, where Tatare, Xenicus, 

 Clytorhynchus, Acanthisitta, Ruticilla moussieri, and many 

 another friendless stranger must have a somewhat general 

 refuge afforded to them. Nor can we expect the various 

 authors to have identical views on the specific value of many 

 forms. Yet we may reasonably presume that the system 

 of subdivision shall be guided by the same general principles. 

 A careful examination of vol. viii. compels us to the con- 

 clusion that Dr. Gadow, in compiling his portion of the 

 Catalogue, has too often disregarded any idea of conforming 

 to a general principle. He has, to take the case of the 

 Paridse, exercised his right of private judgment to a very 

 liberal extent. But our complaint is, that he has not done 

 this on any uniform or consistent principle. We- are be- 

 wildered by the inclusion or exclusion of subspecies or races, 

 but no information is given as to why one form has specific 

 rank, another subspecific, and a third is classed as a race. 

 We ask in vain why Pariis leucopterus; is a race of P. niger, 



