Vol.XXin Recent Literattire. 429 



of 6 (= 7 forms) to each, P. major and P.palustris each having 13, P. «/«/- 

 14, etc. 



The Alaskan Budytes fiuvus alascensis Ridgw. stands as Motacilla flava 

 alascensis ; the North American Anthus pensylvanicus as A. spinoletta 

 pensylvanica. 



Eremophila is used in place of Otocoris, since in the opinion of Mr. 

 Hartert the generic names Eremophilus and Eremophila are both tenable. 

 It may here be also noted that from his point of view a specific or sub- 

 specific name need not agree in gender with the generic name, it being 

 his preference to preserve the original ending of a specific name when 

 transferred to a genus which has a different gender ending, as in the case 

 above of Anthus pensylvanicus, which was originally described as a species 

 of Alauda. It may be further noted that the palaearctic species of Otoco- 

 ris here recognized number 15, all subspecies of alpestris, as against 14 

 recently admitted by Oberholser, who, however, gave full specific rank to 

 5 of them. But in only nine cases are the same names adopted. 



Despite certain excentricities of treatment, Dr. Hartert's ' Die Vogel 

 der palaarktischen Fauna ' will long prove a most useful and convenient 

 hand-book, for which ornithologists may well feel deeply grateful. — 

 J. A. A. 



Clark on the Amount of Difference that should characterize Species 

 and Subspecies. — We regret that the character of Mr. Clark's paper 1 is 

 such that if it is to be noticed here at all it must be considered at some 

 length. Were it not that it doubtless reflects the attitude of the 'lay' 

 class, and thus appeals to the sympathies of the untrained who have 

 neither the opportunity nor, perhaps, the desire to become experts, and 

 is thus a misleading presentation of the case, it might well be passed over 

 without mention. - The author, Dr. Hubert Lyman Clark, is not unknown 

 to readers of 'The Auk' and to ornithologists in general through his 

 various excellent papers on the pterylography of various groups of birds, 

 but so far as technical descriptive ornithology goes his experience has 

 evidently been extremely limited. That such is the case, the rules he 

 prescribes give evidence. 



In the present paper he has formulated "fundamental rules," which, it 

 seems to him, ought to govern work in systematic zoology. They are 

 each explained and defended at some length against criticisms made by 

 the present reviewer upon a previous paper of his on the same subject. 

 The history of the case cannot be given better than in his own words. 

 As the following quotations contain transcripts of the previous objection- 

 able criticisms they will in part cover what it seems desirable to say 

 in the present connection. He says: 



1 The Limits of Difference in Specific and Subspecific Distinctions. By 

 Hubert Lyman Clark. Fifth Annual Report of the Michigan Academy of 

 Science for the year 1903, pp. 216-21S. 



