yo Recent Literature. \J]t^ 



Anglorum" [ = piijinus], and ''Sterna Trtideaui" \ and excludes '' Pro- 

 cellaria pelagica " and " Sterna tnacroura [ = paradiscea ] because no 

 specimens are found in tlie Lawrence collection and there are no recent 

 records. There are no less than three valid records for H. ncevius near 

 New York City, and neither of the reasons just given seems sufficient to 

 exclude a species once recorded, nor do they explain other omissions. It 

 is inconsistent to exclude, for instance, Tringa alpina or ^^strelata hcrsi- 

 tata by the 50-mile limit rule and then admit Chen ccErulescens and A7ias 

 crecca. 



As a whole, however, the list is refreshingly accurate. The English 

 name given to Acatitkis linaria rostrata on page 57 should be Greater 

 Red-poll, but there are no other slips of the pen worthy of notice. 



A new and pleasing feature is found in the habitats given for each 

 species, and they are defined with unusual care. Still, in numerous 

 instances they are carelessly expressed. " Breeds from Pennsylvania north- 

 ward," for instance, is not a habitat. Many of the birds of the Canadian 

 avifauna are correctly stated to breed southward along the Alleghany 

 Mountains, but the following species have been omitted, viz. : Sphyra- 

 pirns varius, Cotitopus borealis, Empidonax Jlaviventris, Spinus pinits, 

 Si'iiirus noveboracensis, Sylvania canadensis and Certkia faniiliaris 

 americana. Some of them have been recorded as far south as North 

 Carolina, years ago. 



Turning for a moment to the introduction we find classified groups of 

 birds that are not happily chosen. The distinctions are artificial, rarity 

 usurping largely the place of a scientific basis. For instance, the 

 " irregular transient visitants " might readily fall into other groups and 

 the awkward term used thus become superfluous. More than this, why 

 the Sooty Tern and the Oyster-catcher are grouped apart from the 

 White Ibis and the Black-necked Stilt is not obvious on any basis. 



However, there is so much of value in this important contribution, that 

 we can well close our eyes to its comparatively unimportant defects. — 

 J. D., Jr. 



Ridgway on New Birds from the Galapagos Islands.' — In a preliminary 

 paper of fourteen pages Mr. Ridgway has given us some of the results of 

 his studies of the large collection of birds made at the Galapagos Islands 

 by Dr. G. Baur and the late Mr. C F. Adams in 1891. Says Mr. Ridgway : 

 " Many of the specimens having been obtained on islands never before 

 visited by a collector, it is to be expected that novelties would be found 

 among the rich material which it has been my privilege to study. . . . 

 Perhaps the most interesting result of Messrs. Baur and Adams' explora- 



' Descriptions of Twenty-two New Species of Birds from the Galapagos 

 Islands. By Robert Ridgway. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XVII, 1894, pp. 357- 

 370, No. 1007. 



