278 



Reretif Uteratitre. FJ^'y 



especially to the African, the Aiistro-Malayan and the Australian series. 

 The number of specimens contained in the British Museum is given as 

 "51 13, belonging to 450 species, whilst 49 are not represented in the 

 Museum, so that the total number of species admitted in the i)resent 

 Catalogue is 499, of wliich 13 are now described for the first time."' He 

 also records in footnotes 14 species and subspecies which he was unable 

 to identify, quoting in each case the original description. In an appendix 

 are also treated 56 " doubtful species" of Parrots. 



Respecting the classification of the Psittaci, he says : "It is well known 

 to ornithologists that the classification of the Parrots has been a very dif- 

 ficult problem ; and I am sorry to say that I cannot offer results that will 

 settle the question." He divides the group into six families, as follows : 

 Nestorid;e, Loriidte, Cyclopsittacida?, Cacatuidie, Psittacidar, and Strin- 

 gopidre. The number of genera recognized is 79, of which 55 belong to 

 tlie single family PsittacidEB. As usual in these volumes generic diagnoses 

 are omitted, beyond the few differential points noted in the 'Keys to the 

 Genera' under the several fiimilies and subfamilies. While the general style 

 of the volume, as regards method of treatment, is similar to that of the 

 preceding volumes of the series, the author is much less conservative 

 than most of his predecessors in his treatment of both genera and 

 species, — by no means a fault, if we take certain of the earlier volumes as 

 a standard for comparison. Dr. Finsch, in his well-known monograph, 

 'Die Papageien,' published in 1S68, recognized 351 species, to which he 

 added a list of 41 he was unable to identify. These he classified in one 

 family, divided into five subfamilies and 26 genera. Dr. Reichenow, in 

 1SS2, in his 'Conspectus Psittacorum;' recognized 444 species, which he 

 placed in nine families and 44 genera, with, in addition, 27 subgenera. 

 These are instructive figures, showing the drift of modern ornithological 

 research, since the work under review is not exceptional as regards 

 increase in the number of forms now currently recognized as compared 

 with the number admitted one or two decades ago. The change is due 

 largely to the great increase of material, gathered in part from previously 

 little-known regions. 



Among the new genera may be noted Coniiropsis, with the Carolina 

 Parroquet as the type and onlj' species. 



By what reason A mazoiia Lesson, 1831, is rejected for Chn'sofis Swain., 

 1837, is not clear, since on the evidence, as shown by Salvador! himself, 

 there is apparently no reason, unless it be the fact that Amnzona was 

 called by Lesson a " sous-geni-e," although he used it in the sense of a 

 genus, the species being called by him '■'• Amazona fulverulenta" "Am- 

 nzona icterocephala" etc. To reject it on this ground is not in accordance 

 with either modern usage or current nomenclatural rules. Neither is it 

 in accordance with our author's own practice in other cases, since he 

 accepts (p. 421) Lesson's 'sous-genre' Mascarinus without protest, 

 although occurring on the same page as Amazona and used in the same 

 way. 



While our author is willing to take Kuhl's "Sectio II, Conurus" as a 



