322 Recently published Ornithological Wurhs. 



mela ; Centurus dubius=C. leei; Chlorostilbon caniveti=C. 

 forficatus. 



Mr. Ridgway's paper is merely a preliminary one, and we 

 look forward with interest to his promised fuller account. 



101. Rochebrune's 'Birds of Senegambia.' 



[Faune de la S6n4gambie par A.-T. de Rochebrune. (Oiseaux.) 

 Royal 8vo, Paris: 1884.] 



An account of the birds of the French colony of Sene- 

 gambia has long been wanting, and we are always glad to 

 welcome a new worker into the wide field of ornithology, 

 although it is necessary to say that we are not quite satisfied 

 with the present volume. Dr. Rochebrune gives us an ac- 

 count of 686 species of birds which he attributes to the fauna 

 of Senegambia. Of these Scotopelia oustaleti, Psittacus 

 rubrovarius, j^githalus calotropiphilus, Nilaus edivardsi, and 

 Estrelda savatieri are said to be new discoveries ; but the 

 Psittacus is certainly only a variety of Ps. erithacus, and 

 we are a little suspicious about some of the other supposed 

 new species. But the important question is whether we may 

 safely rely on the author's assertions that all the 686 species 

 mentioned in the work are to be found within the limits of 

 Senegambia. For example. Dr. Rochebrune maintains that 

 he has " seen and hunted " three diflerent species of Bucorvus 

 (usually supposed by those who admit them to be geogra- 

 phical representatives of each other), all in Senegambia. Dr. 

 Rochebrune likewise includes in his list Gyps rueppelli, 

 Poeocephalus robustus, Schizorhis leucogastra, and many other 

 species hitherto believed to be confined to Eastern and 

 Southern Africa. Now we ask, in all seriousness, has our 

 author actually procured in Senegambia examples of all these 

 species, and have they been determined by competent autho- 

 rities, or are they only identified by recollection ? It would 

 have been much more satisfactory to have followed Count 

 Salvadori's excellent plan of giving a list of the specimens 

 of each species obtained, with their exact dates and localities. 



As regards what Dr. Rochebrune calls the " ovologie '•'(!) of 

 his volume, we fear, again, there must be some errors. Does 



