94 Recent Literature. [f^^ 



The fii'st volume of this great work appeared in 1899, the second in 1900, 

 the third in 1901, and the fourth in 1903, there being an interval of ten 

 years between the appearance of the first and last volumes. They have 

 also steadily increased in size, the fifth being more than twice the size of 

 the first, the five volumes totaling more than 1700 pages. 



According to statistics given in the present volume "the total number 

 of known species of birds is, .... approximately," 18,939, arranged in 

 2810 genera, 174 families, and 35 orders. The Passeriformes alone com- 

 prise 48 families. Dr. Dubois's 'Synopsis Avium,' completed five years 

 ago, contained 16,478 species and subspecies, 2252 genera, 145 families, 

 and 23 orders. A thousand species, and probably 150 genera, have doubt- 

 less been added during the last four years, thus considerably lessening the 

 apparent difference between the number of 'species' and genera recognized 

 in the two works, with the number, five years ago, probably nearer the 

 figures given by Dubois, in view of the fact that Sharpe's ' species ' include 

 hundreds of forms originally proposed as subspecies and later discarded, 

 even by their authors, as well as by subsequent authorities who have 

 had occasion to deal with them. 



While Dr. Sharpe, in this work alone, not to mention his many volumes 

 of the British Museum 'Catalogue of Birds,' and numberless other works 

 and papers, has done an immense service to systematic ornithology, it is to 

 be regretted that he has adhered so strictly to certain antiquated methods 

 and ideas. "Consistency is [not] a jewel" when it stands in the way of 

 progress. When the British Museum Catalogue of Birds was begun, 

 thirty-five years ago (the first volume was published in 1874) , it was quite 

 the natural thing to begin zoological nomenclature with the twelfth edition 

 of Linnseus's ' Systema Naturae' (1766), although admitting genera of other 

 authors of prior date (notably Brisson's), thus treating these authors better 

 than Linnajus; but the 10th edition is now, and has been for many years, 

 the starting point authorized by all modern codes of zoological nomen- 

 clature, and. is generally accepted by all authors except the very few who 

 find it difficult to abandon long-standing habits of thought and practice.' 

 Equally difficult is the abandonment of the habit of giving preference to 

 emended names, as is shown by the 'Hand-List,' although such practice 

 is tabooed by modern codes and has been abandoned by most of the leading 

 zoologists of the present day. 



Neither has the author of the ' Hand-List ' been able to accept the modern 

 notion of subspecies, he being apparently appalled by the occurrence now 

 and then of a tautonymic trinominal. But he says: "That races or sub- 

 species exist in nature, no one can deny, but, to my mind, a binomial 

 title answers every purpose, and a system of nomenclature which calls 



1 In a footnote to page 386. apropos of the name " Pyranga rubra" vs. P. erythrome- 

 Ins, Dr. Sharpe says: "In common with most British Naturalists, I do not recognize 

 the names of the 10th edition [1758] of Linnjeiis's 'Systema,' and I follow Dr. Sclater 

 in preserving the name P. rubra (Linn.) [1766] for the species." We fear the state- 

 ment "most British Naturalists" is merely an unconscious reminiscencel 



