\2\) Recent Literature. Uan. 



citing nearly all of the important genera and a fairly representative list of 

 species under each, although some of the most common North American 

 species, such as the Downy Woodpecker, are omitted. The text illustra- 

 tions are numerous, well chosen, and admirable both in execution and in 

 reproduction. 



With the completed work before us Dr. Reichenow's classification can 

 be better understood than from the outline given in Vol. I. 



He divides the birds primarily into 1, Ratitse; II, Natatores; III, 

 Grallatores; IV, Cutinares; V, Fibulatores; and VI, Arboricolse. The 

 limits of the first three groups are easily understood. The others can be 

 best appreciated in tabular form as follows: 



4. Reihe: Cutinares 



Ord. Deserticolae ( Turnicidoe, Thinocoridce and Pteroclidce) 

 Crypturi (Tinamous) 

 Rassores (Gallinaceous birds) 

 Gyrantes (Doves) 

 Raptores (Vultures, Hawks and Owls) 



5. Reihe: Fibulatores 

 Ord. Psittaci (Parrots) 



Scansores (Woodpeckers, Toucans, etc., and also Trogons and 

 Cuckoos) 



6. Reihe: Arboricolse 



Ord. Insessores (Hornbills, Kingfishers, Hoopoes, Rollers, Motmots, 

 Bee-eaters, etc.) 

 Strisores (Nightjars, Swifts and Hummingbirds) 

 Clamatores (in the usual sense) 

 Oscines (including the Lyre-bird and the true song-birds) 



Such a classification takes us back a good many years, to the time when 

 characters of bill and feet were the basis of our systems. It was this 

 fact and the ignoring of various generally recognized relationships that 

 caused us to refer to the classification as conservative in reviewing Volume 

 I. It was perhaps unfair, however, to make this remark without setting 

 forth the underlying principles of Dr. Reichenow's system which we pre- 

 ferred not to discuss until the whole work was before us. 



Briefly his views, as we understand them, are, that in order to become 

 acquainted with the great multitude of bird species it is necessary to arrange 

 them in a system wherein each one finds its place through a successive sub- 

 division of groups from orders down to species. Further that such a sys- 

 tem for general, practical use had better be based upon more or less obvious 

 external characters, than upon deep seated phylogenetic characters which 

 are not recognizable without dissection and minute study. He does not 

 belLtle the importance of the latter but does not regard them as practical 

 for a " logical system." Indeed he states definitely that " System and 

 Genealogy have absolutely different ends in view and must advance side 

 by side." 



