Recently published Ornithological Works. 567 



In anticipation of a monograph of the Mormonida (as Dr. 

 Dyhowski calls the family to which we should apply the name 

 Fraterculidce, and which we are inclined to agree with him in 

 considering distinct from the Alcida), the author of this in- 

 teresting paper gives us the result of his observations on six 

 out of the seven species which inhabit the North Pacific. The 

 eighth member of the family [Fratercula arctica) is confined 

 to the North Atlantic. The breeding-places and habits 

 are described; some statements of Dr. Bureau relative to the 

 '^ moult ^^ of the bill are controverted; and Lunda cirrhatUy 

 Fratercula corniculata, Onibria psittacnla, and Simorhynchus 

 kanitschaticus are redescribed. 



114. Gadow's Catalogue of the Paridce, Laniidce, and Certhio- 

 morphce. 



[Catalogue of the Passeriformes or Perching Birds in the Collection of 

 the British Museum. Cichlomorphte : Part V., containing the Families 

 Paridse and Laniida), and Certhiomorphae. By Hans Gadow, Ph.D. 

 London. Vol. viii. Printed by order of the Trustees, 1883.] 



Dr. Gadow's new volume of the British Museum Catalogue 

 is not quite so bulky as Mr. Sharpens (see below, p. 572), for it 

 contains only 386 pages and 9 plates; but the Cinnyrimorphse 

 (prepared by the same author) are retained for another 

 volume. In the present (eighth of the series) are contained 

 the three families^ Paridae, Laniidse, and Certhiidse. These 

 are all much more natural groups than the unfortunate 

 Timeliidse, though, as Dr. Gadow himself complains (see 

 pp. vii and 88), certain genera not properly apportioned to 

 them have been forced in and others forced out by circum- 

 stances over which he had no control. No new genera and 

 but two new species {Lanius seebohmi, from Amoorland, and 

 Pachijcephale fortis, from New Guinea) are described. We 

 propose to make some small criticisms, while fully acknow- 

 ledging the value of Dr. Gadow's work. 



Xenopirostris pachycephaloides (!) is^ we venture to say, no 

 Xenopirostris at all, but in all respects a Myiolestes, and should 

 have been put in (or near) that genus. It would be indeed 



