Vol. XIX 1 Recent Literature. lOI 



1902 J X >-» i 



Coccolliraustese. Zonotrichise. 



Loxiie. Geospizie. 



Pyrrhula?, Haplospizae. 



Fringilhe. Sporophihe. 



Calcaiiea". Cyanospizae. 



Calamospiza;. Orjzoborese. 



Spizat. Guiiacae. 



ChondesteiE, , Cardinaleae. 



Ammodrami. Pitjles. 



Mr. Ridgwaj's treatment is entirely technical, consisting, in addition 

 to the definitions of the higher groups and the ' keys,' of a description of 

 the external characters of each species and subspecies, including meas- 

 urements (in millimeters), and the differences due to age and sex; to 

 which is added a concise statement of the geographical range, but 

 nothing relating to the nests and eggs or the life histories. This descrip- 

 tive matter is followed by the synonymies and bibliographical citations, 

 which are often very extended and make up bj' far the greater part of the 

 text. They have evidently been compiled with the utmost care, and 

 embrace all that seem likely to serve any useful purpose. Type localities 

 are specified when known; and likewise the location of type specimens. 



The citations have been given with extreme exactness, in order to show 

 just how the names were employed, even to the precise orthography of 

 the writer ; and "when the locality to which a citation refers can be 

 ascertained it has been given," with obvious advantages. "Anyone," 

 says the author, "who has had occasion to verify citations must know 

 that the amount of inaccuracy and misrepresentation in current synon- 

 ymies, even the most authoritative and elaborate, is simply astounding. 

 They abound with names which do not even exist in the works cited, 

 with those which do not correspond with the originals in orthography-, 

 and others which have no meaning or use whatever." Such a standard as 

 is here set should prove a reprimand to those guilty of such loose methods 

 and an incentive to accuracy to future workers. But there is one point we 

 note with some surprise, namely, that the author of a manuscript name is 

 given as the authority for the name instead of the author who first published 

 it. In citation due credit is given by citing such names in the following 

 manner, to take an actual case as an illustration, namely: Leucosiicte 

 tap/irocotis, var. ««.s7;-rt//.< Ridgway (ex Allen MS.) etc., and Ridgway and 

 not Allen should stand as the authority for the name aiestrtr/i's ; and so 

 in all similar cases. Thus the form in question, now properly recognized 

 as a full species, should stand as Leticosttcte ausfralis (Ridgway) — not 

 Leiicosticte australt's (Allen), as seems to be Mr. Ridgway's rule for this 

 class of cases. This criticism relates of course only to manuscript names 

 on museum labels, oi' to manuscript names merely, and not to inedited 

 manuscripts published as such by another author. 



