Reviews of Publications 153 



REVIEWS OF PUBLICATIONS 



THE BIRDS OF NOETH AND MIDDLE AMERICA. 



Part VI. By Robert Ridgavay. 



The sixth part of this monumental work comprises the Picariae with 

 the families Picidae (152 forms), Capitonidae (4 forms), Ramphastidae 

 (14 forms), Galbulidae (3 forms), Bucconidae (13 forms), the Aniso- 

 daetylae with the families Alcedinidae (10 forms), Todidae (6 forms), 

 Momotidae (20 forms), Caprimulgidae (39 forms), Nyetibiidae (5 

 forms) and the Striges with the families Tytonidae (9 forms) and 

 Bubonidae (94 forms). Quite a number of new forms are here given 

 for the first time and many critical remarks on already diagnosed forms 

 are made. For instance in regard to the further subdivision of the 

 genus Centurus among the Picidae. When it is stated that the forms 

 of Dryohatcs villosus and pitbescens, of Colaptes cmratus of Phl(x:otomus 

 pileatus show a gradual increase in size from Florida northward with- 

 out any material change in coloration one is inclined to ask has the 

 naming of all these forms a practical value besides the mere scientific 

 value? A great deal depends of course upon the point of view in such 

 cases, but Avhen it comes to being a science for science's sake only, when 

 the scientific and the practical are thus separated Ave are inclined to ask, 

 "cui bono?" On the other hand, some of these iwoblems must be solved 

 along these lines, and no man is better able to solve them than Professor 

 EidgAvay, the distinguished author of this work. It is interesting, too, 

 to notice the different views, which for instance Professor Eidgway and 

 Dr. A. Reichenow, express in their respective works about such a family 

 as the Striges. Space forbids us to enter upon any details, but a care- 

 ful study of both authors will show that either view has some points in 

 its favor, and that Dr. Reichenow 's ideas cannot be disposed of with a 

 few remarks, as was done in the review of his work in the Auk some 

 time ago, which only showed and proved that the reviewer had not in 

 the least understood the fundamental principle of Dr. Reichenow 's classi- 

 fication, and in his ignorance of the case had simply scjuelched its merits. 

 Cryptoglaux acadicus scotaeus is considered an individual variation of 

 acadicus proper, and Otiis fammeohts idohocnsis is referred to flam- 

 meolus, and Otus xantnsi is made a subspecies of asio, and we think in 

 every case that Mr. Ridgway is correct. The same principle will per- 

 haps apply to Glmicidium gnoma hosMnsii, which applies to Cryptoglaux 

 acadicus scotaeus. Altogether Mr. Ridgway is to be congratulated upon 

 the completion of this volume, and we hope that the other parts will 

 speedily follow. W. F. H. 



