320 Bihliographical Notices. 



as doubtful in the British list ; and it would bo well if this speci- 

 men, which is now in the Ipswich Museum, were carefully com- 

 pared with examples of the Mute and Trumpeter Swans, so as to 

 set the question finally at rest. 



On the whole we confidently recommend Mr. Babington's Cata- 

 logue to all who take an interest in British birds. 



Birds on the British List, their title to enrohnent considered, especially 

 wiili reference to the British Ornithological Union's List of British 

 Birds, luilh a few RernarTcs on Evolution and Notes vpon the 

 rarer Eggs. By the Eev. Gkegort Smakt, M.A., late Scholar of 

 Trinity College, Cambridge. Loudon : R. H. Porter, 18S6. 



Several Lists of British Birds have been pulilished during the last 

 few years, each one, to a large extent at least, filling np a void space 

 in our ornithological literature ; but we must confess that we fail 

 to discover in what way the present List tends to supply any want 

 in that direction. It appears to be a mere random collection of 

 many of tlie doubtful species included in the British Ornithologists' 

 (not Ornithological, as above stated) Union's List, together with 

 many not referred to in that List, and which most undoubtedly 

 never have been met with in the British Isles, some of which (as, 

 for instance, Mimiis polyglottus, Lanius eoccuhitoroides, Archibuteo 

 sancti-johannis, Podilymbus podiceps, &c.) appear to be included 

 merely to aftbrd an opportunity of describing their eggs in the 

 author's collection. Judging, indeed, from the notes given by the 

 author, we can only coucludo that he is a mere egg-collector, with 

 but little knowledge of ornithology or experience in natural history, 

 as in many cases he appears to have got hopelessly befogged. For 

 instance, he says (p. 41) that if the eggs of Anthus ludovicianus in 

 his collection be authentic, ^'■Anthus ludovicianus and Anthus cam- 

 piestris can scarcely be conspecific," a statement which he could 

 never have made had he any acquaintance with these so totally 

 distinct species. Again (p. 42), he quotes under Anthus cervinus a 

 note by Mr. Robert Gray (not Grey) on Anthus ludovicianus, as if 

 these two species were identical ; and further to complicate matters, 

 he remarks that, as " these birds have not been preserved, and 

 Professor Newton is inclined to assign them to rupestris, it will 

 depend on Grey's {sic) capability of distinguishing between the two 

 forms " — thus inferring that Gray is doubtful of the distinctions 

 between Anthus riqjestris and A. cervinus. Both forms of Spotted 

 Eagle are included in the List as British, whereas it would aj^pear 

 that only one (Aqtiila clanga) has really been proved to have occurred 

 in Great Britain ; and at p. 9, under his note on Afpiila clanga, he 

 describes the eggs of that species as having been taken in Pome- 

 rania, a locality where only Aqxdla pomarina, and not Acpiila clanga, 

 is known to nest. 



Under the notes on Acanthyllis (Chicturu) caudacuta, after stating 



