486 Recently published Ot'nithological Works. 



with the two existing Records, it must certainly be allowed 

 that the new comer has distanced both its rivals in effecting 

 its complete publication within the year after that to which 

 it relates, although, as regards the section Aves we have 

 reason to know that the English Record was actually printed 

 off by the beginning of November 1880. There is, however, 

 a homely proverb relating to '' more haste, •'^ which is by no 

 means without its bearing upon the work of Messrs. Reichenow 

 and Schalow ; for almost every page of it contains an error, 

 whilst some pages fairly overflow with them. We need go no 

 further than the second name on the list under " Litteratur " 

 to find Mr. Robert Ridgway credited with the " Second Instal- 

 ment of Ornithological Bibliography,^^ upon which Dr. Elliott 

 Coues has expended so much time and pains. Again, under the 

 head of " Museologie, Taxidermie,^"* we find Mr. Sharpe's 

 'Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum,' part iv., 

 CampopliagidcB and Miiscicapidce (a volume which treats of 

 69 genera and nearly 500 species, seven of the former and 

 about twenty of the latter being new) briefly dismissed with 

 " bildet den vierten Band des ganzen Werkes ; '^ whilst to 

 E. P. Homey er's description of his little private collection 

 of birds five lines of abstract are devoted. Some important 

 works and papers, published in 1879, are altogether omitted ; 

 but, on the other hand, the bulk of the volume is swollen by 

 the insertion of many which were published in 1878, some in 

 1877, a few in 1880, and by titles of others which are mostly 

 trivial and ephemeral contributions and popular articles from 

 magazines of no scientific value whatever. Now we submit 

 that the object of a Record of Ornithological Literature is 

 not merely to place in alphabetical order, Avithout discrimi- 

 nation, the names of the authors of important works and 

 those of the writers of insignificant papers. Passing on to 

 the Systematic section, we find far worse things are in store 

 for us. Whatever difference of opinion there may be as to 

 whether certain papers are or are not worth notice, there can 

 be no doubt that all newly named genera and species should 

 be recorded. Yet in papers which the German Recorders 

 either profess to have noticed, or with which they ought 



I 



