LETM5 



To the Editors of British Birds. 



THE BRITISH BIRD BOOK. 



Sirs, — I ask yovx to permit me to point oiit that one of the comments 

 in the review on the above work, pubUshed in the last number of British 

 Birds, is worded in such a way as to mislead your readers as to the 

 actual facts. It is with the facts, and not with your reviewer's opinions, 

 that I beg leave here to deal. 



I refer to the statement that the information given in the " Classified 

 Notes " that appear at the head of the chapters in the British Bird Book 

 " is not so detailed as, for instance, in so compressed a work as 

 Saunders' Manual.''' Anyone who examines the " Classified Notes " 

 will, in the first place, find that, though as much, if not more compressed, 

 than the chapters in the Manual, they give more information, especially 

 in respect to migration and nesting habits. It is true that less detailed 

 information is given about distribution ; but your reviewer omits to 

 mention that in the preface I state that " a detailed account of the 

 geographical distribution of our birds lies outside the scope of the work, 

 which professes to deal comprehensively only with their habits." The 

 reviewer says, further, that the descriptions of the species " seem " too 

 meagre, but again he omits to mention that these descriptions, unlike 

 those of Howard Saunders, are supplemented by coloiu-ed plates, and 

 makes no comment upon the method adopted in the British Bird Book^ 

 but not by H. Saunders, of giving prominence to the most characteristic 

 external features of each species. Some of the descriptions are and will 

 be more detailed than those in the Manual. Again, mention of the 

 migration notes is entirely omitted. I content myself with inviting 

 your readers to compare these with what is said on the same subject 

 by H. Saunders. The reviewer again omits to point ovit that the notes 

 on nests and eggs contain in a systematic form information which is not 

 given in the Manual, and which no one has ever attempted to collate 

 in this systematic way before. 



Turning to the only other point I have space to deal with, I wish to 

 state that the nomenclature was in the very efficient hands of Mr. 

 F. C. R. Jourdain, who, it is fair to add, has not been able to go as far 

 as he could have wished. Whether it would have been wiser to go 

 further is a question about which the highest authorities in this country 

 would differ. In answer to the reviewer's detailed comments I beg to point 

 out that in every case where the British form differs in the least from the 

 typical race, the name of our lor J sub-species is given in the Classified 



