Reeent Ornithological Publications. 205 



deny. In the first place, every variation of form, however 

 minute, w hether considered specific or not, is worthy of record ; 

 and, secondly, perfect specific identity should not be predicated 

 of any two sets of forms coming from widely distant regions 

 without actual comparison of examples. When difierences are 

 often so minute and yet so constant, it is not sufficient to draw 

 conclusions as to specific identity from descriptions and figures, 

 however excellent. Now against this last rule it appeai-s to us 

 that Dr. v. Schrenck, no doubt owing mainly to the want of 

 opportunity — certainly not from the wish to escape work — has 

 in many instances ofi'euded ; and we shall proceed to notice a few 

 of them, to some of which our attention has been particularly 

 directed by Dr. Hartlaub. 



Acanthylis caudacuta (p. 250) is considered identical with 

 the Australian bird. It may be so; but such a point can 

 only be considered established after examination of a large series 

 of examples from each locality. Had the Amoorian bird been 

 united with the Himalayan form, Acanthylis nudipes [Hirundo 

 nudipes, Hodgs. ; Cypselus leuconotus, Delessert), we should 

 hardly have made the same objection. But we cannot allow 

 that the same '^ species " of bird can exist in two widely sepa- 

 rated localities without existing also in the intermediate space, 

 and we have never heard that this Acanthylis has been met with 

 in the Indian peninsula, Java, Sumatra, Borneo, or New Guinea. 

 Dr. V. Schrenck's suggestion that the bird regularly migrates 

 from the Amoor to New South Wales cannot surely be serious*. 



Alcedo ispida, var. bengalensis (p. 265). This "local variety 

 of our Kingfisher," as Dr. v. Schrenck prefers to call it, is a 

 much smaller bird than A. ispida, but has the beak remark- 

 ably longer. In this case, however, an elaborate discussion is 



* The existence of this Swift in N.E. Asia will perhaps explain the 

 occun-ence of the so-called " AustraUan Spine-tailed Swift " in the British 

 Islands. We have little doubt that it was a wanderer from Eastern Asia 

 that was recorded under this name (Zoologist, 1846, p. 1492) as having 

 been captured in this covmtry, if the statements there given are to be 

 relied upon. Such an occurrence would not be more unlikely than that of 

 Anthus richardi, Turtur gelastes, Phylloscopus superciliosus sen reguloides, 

 and other accidental visitors to Western Europe from the far East. 



