' Ornithologie Nordost-Afrika's.' 425 



Helotarsus ecaudatus and H. leuconotus does not yet seem to be 

 satisfactorily established. 



The utility of the golden rule, to regard only names published 

 with descriptions, which English naturalists almost universally re- 

 cognize, was never more clearly exemplified than when the present 

 work is judged by its standard. The author accords priority to 

 the names given — without any diagnosis of the species, in his 

 own 'Systematische Uebersicht,^ concerning which we fully agree 

 with Mr. Blanford (Geol. and Zool. Abyss, p. 211), and to those 

 of the ' Icones Ineditse ' of Prince Paul of Wiirttemberg. It is 

 for this reason that I cannot allow the synonym of Circaetus 

 fasciatus, Heugl., published without description in the afore- 

 mentioned list, to take precedence of C. beaudouini, published in due 

 form by MM. J. Verreaux and Desmurs, in ' The Ibis ' for 1862 

 (p. 212) . He is further certainly in error (p. 86) when he associates 

 with this species C. fasciolatus, Gray, from Natal, which is un- 

 doubtedly a distinct species, and the smallest of the genus, whereas 

 C. beaudouini is one of the largest. He expresses a doubt as 

 to the occurrence of the latter in West Africa ; but there is a 

 specimen from Bissao in the grand collection at Norwich. C. 

 fasciolatus is also a perfectly distinct form, smaller than C. 

 zonurus, to which, as well as to the previous species, the author 

 doubtfully refers it. This last title, again, has no claim to 

 priority (p. 86), and the species should stand as C. cinerascens, 

 W. von Miiller, whose labours in the cause of African ornitho- 

 logy have scarcely received the notice they deserve. Further 

 particulars are desirable as to the specimen of Buteo augur 

 from Southern Africa, stated in the present work to be in the 

 Stuttgart Museum, as this is the only instance hitherto re- 

 corded of the occurrence of the species so far to the southward. 

 Whether Dr. von Heuglin is correct (p. 93) in referring B. au- 

 guralis, Salvad., to B. anceps, A. Brehm"^, is questionable. He 

 does not appear to be aware that this species sometimes extends 

 to West Africa. The Zoological Society had two living speci- 

 mens from that locality, one of which is now in the British 

 Museum. M. Verreaux has also, I believe, received it from the 



* This species was described in the ' Naumannia,' for 1855, not 1854, 

 as the reference has it. 



