244 Recent Literature. [April 



(3), a discussion of nomenclatural matters and types of the genera. Such 

 is the plan of the work which, except in the one point mentioned above, 

 seems admirable. 



It is of course the questions of classification and nomenclature that inter- 

 est us most in a check-list. As to the former the Committee has adopted 

 the system of 'Sharpe's 'Hand-List of Birds', reversing the order so as to 

 begin with the Crows, which brings the work nearly in accord with the 

 ' Hand-List ' of Hartert et al. In matters of nomenclature: (1) the tenth edi- 

 tion of Linnaeus has been accepted as a starting point instead of the twelfth; 

 (2) tautonyms have been allowed; (3) trinomials have been adopted; (4) 

 the fixation of a type for each genus according to the rules of the Inter- 

 national Commission is recognized as a necessity. After having adopted 

 such astounding changes from the antiquated policies that have heretofore 

 governed the B. O. U., we feel like forgiving the Committee for the little 

 list of thirteen nomina conservanda which the members refuse to relin- 

 quish, and the emendations which they feel must be made in the spelling 

 of a few names! The advanced stand that is taken by the new B. O. U. 

 List is certainly creditable to all concerned and makes a great stride 

 towards that ultimate goal of uniformity for which so many of us have 

 been striving. 



Comparing the present work with the original 1883 edition we find 92 

 changes in specific and 51 in generic names; and yet the ' Hand-List ' of 

 Hartert et al, which seemed to some so impossible, contained only 111 speci- 

 fic changes and 72 generic! 



Comparing the new list with the latter we find only 86 differences, nearly 

 half of which are questions of the limits of genera or of the specific or sub- 

 specific rank of certain forms. Thirty cases depend upon dates of publica- 

 tion and the recognizability of early diagnoses or the acceptance of certain 

 authors— as Vroeg and Oken; six hinge on whether names are sufficiently 

 different in form to be recognized as distinct and then there are the thir- 

 teen nomina conservanda. Practically all of these differences can readily 

 be settled by convention, as. there is really no longer any principle at stake. 



Comparing the new list with that of the A. O. U., we find less discrepancy 

 in the matter of genera than was the case with the British 'Hand-List'. 

 Thirteen genera of the A. O. U. list rejected by Hartert and his associates 

 are here recognized, but many others are not regarded as separable, as 

 Nannus, Acanthopneuste, Planesticus, Archibuteo, Chaulelasmus, Nettion, 

 Charitonetta, Olor, Actitis, Helodromas, Oxyechus, Pelidna, Erolia, Lobipes 

 Ionornis and Herodias. Hierofalco on the other hand is recognized as 

 distinct. 



The A. O. U. use of Hirundo is endorsed, but the use of Bombycilla for the 

 Waxwings is avoided by an argument that really has no basis except on the 

 ground of a nomen conservandum. Flammea is used for the Barn Owl, 

 both Aluco and Tyto being preoccupied and so also with Polysticta for 

 Steller's Eider, which is supplanted by Heniconetta. 



The name rusticolus for the Gyrfalcon is rejected in place of gyrfalco and 



