^6 Reviews. [^^^ 



July 



I\Ir. Mathews's thoroughness in collecting evidence regarding the 

 date of publication of works connected with Australian orni- 

 thology is apparent in the complete data given. It is shown that 

 some changes are necessary. One of the most noticeable, perhaps, 

 is the work of Vieillot, published in April, 1816, antedating the 

 often-used work of Cuvier, published in December, 1816. 

 Rostratiila, Vieillot's name for the Painted Snipe, supersedes 

 Cuvier' s Rhynchcea. 



Not fewer than 134 of the 212 generic names of the Official 

 " Check-hst " are also used in Mr. Mathews's 1920 "List." Apart 

 from " sphtting," 33 of the generic names of the Official " Check- 

 list " require investigation for various reasons — priority, 18 (4 

 purely Australian) ; " one-letterism," 4 (3 Austrahan) ; type 

 designation (3 Australian) ; chsputed names, 6 (3 Austrahan) ; 

 pre-occupied names (3) ; and " indeterminable " (2, Catarrhactes 

 and Prion). Thus, 15 Australian generic names are in question. 



The names for the splitting of 68 of the " Check-hst " genera 

 by other authors have been accepted by Mr. Mathews, who gives 

 the names for 57 cases of splitting genera proposed by himself. 

 He has, however, already reduced 18 of these to synonyms. Few 

 authors are so candid or fair-minded ; still, 18 generic names with- 

 drawn out of 57 proposed for sphtting by Mr. Mathews — i.e.,' 

 31. () per cent. — is a very large margin for hasty work. 



Thirteen Mathewsian generic names to be used as substitutes 

 for others rendered invalid fur various reasons have been listed 

 by Mr. Mathews. 



Thus this 1920 " List " — half a list of the birds of Australia — 

 perhaps indicates the long-looked-for reaction in the direction 

 of attaining a sound standard for genera. Mr. Mathews has 

 swung away from the extreme position of 309 genera for the 34b 

 species of " List " and Appendix — practically 9 genera for every 

 10 species — a ridiculous position, indeed, when it is considered 

 that a genus is a group of related species, though to the man in the 

 street it ' may be considered farcical to form 9 groups from 10 

 species, and that not in one order, but, on the average, for half 

 the birds of a continent. However, Mr. Mathews has now 

 retreated to 291 genera for the 346 species, or 6 genera for each 

 7 species, and it is hoped that his present frame of mind will 

 continue until he strikes the happy mean between the " lumping " 

 position of the " Reference-hst " and the excessively fine 

 " splitting " of the 1920 " List." 



Mr. Mathews's reference to the B.O.U. "List" for 1915, with an 

 average of 1.82 species to each of the 146 genera used for the 

 birds of the corresponding section of the work, is unfortunate for 

 his case. When making a comparison, it is usual to compare 

 likes. Here, however, Mr. Mathews compares the list of a small 

 area, little larger than that of Victoria and Tasmania, and not 

 containing even one gemis, with that of a continent, with the 

 complete distribution of most genera. The result is really to 

 emphasize strongly his fine splitting (1.19 species for a continent 



