REV1EW5 



Notes on the Birds of Kent. By R. J. Balston, M.B.O.U., 

 C. W. Shepherd,' M.B.O.U., and E. Bartlett. 455 pp. 

 Eight coloured and one collot3rpe plate, and map. R. 

 H. Porter. 



A COUNTY fauna must inevitably be largely a work of com- 

 pilation, but it should also be a great deal more. In the 

 prospectus of the present work we were promised that " all 

 available information hitherto published, together with 

 a very large amount of original material " would be embodied 

 in it. 



On going carefully through the volume, however, we regret 

 to find that the original observations of any importance are 

 singularly few, and we have failed to find any records of rare 

 birds, or information on the distribution of the more local 

 species, that have not already been published elsewhere. 

 Very little attempt seems to have been made to bring the 

 latter important branch of the subject up-to-date, and in 

 consequence the status of several species as given, is at the 

 present day inaccurate. For instance, we find no information 

 about the Dartford Warbler since 1863 ; only very meagre 

 notes on the Golden Oriole since 1875 ; and nothing at all 

 about the Peregrine since 1887. 



For the rest the book is a mere compilation, and consists 

 almost entirely of articles copied verbatim and in extenso 

 from various sources. As a consequence the space taken up 

 is often out of all proportion to the importance of the subject, 

 while other subjects are as much neglected. For example, 

 over eight pages are devoted to anecdotes and trivial 

 observations on the House-Sparrow — quite out of place in 

 a county fauna — and the important subject of the local 

 Heronries is dismissed in as many lines. 



There would not, perhaps, be need to criticise this too 

 severely, had the work of compiling been thoroughly done ; 

 but, unfortunately, this is far from being the case. No 

 bibliography is given, but it is evident that several important 

 sources of information have not been consulted, and even the 

 " Zoologist " has by no means been exhaustively searched. 



The number of birds on the " Kentish List " is computed by 

 the authors at three hundred and twenty, but it A\'ould hardly 

 seem necessary in a county with such a rich avifauna to attain 

 such a total by the inclusion of such species as the American 



