i 9 4 



Recent Literature. [April 



t lie other hand, lias the tail much longer than the wing as do also the 

 other species of Pipilo. No true Embernagra has a rufous pileum, hut 

 some true Pipilos have; no Embernagra has a white throat-patch and 

 malar stripe, hut such markings occur in Pipilo rutilus. Further, the olive 

 green wings and tail of P. chlorurus are reproduced in P. niacrouyx and 

 P. cklorosoma, large species of the black-headed and -chested and rufous- 

 sided group, while P. complcxus* combines with the general plumage of 

 the P. maculatus group the white throat-patch and rufous pileum of P. 

 chlorurits, although these markings are less developed. 



Notwithstanding the strong conservatism of the authors of the ' Biolo- 

 gia,' genera have fared well by them, and wc observe with pleasure that 

 such familiar and well-marked groups or types as those which until recently 

 were familiar to us as Lophofhanes, Peucedramus, Opororm's, Passercu- 

 lus. and Cotur/ticulus, degraded to the rank of subgenera by the A. O. U. 

 committee, are recognized as genera. It matters little whether these are 

 true genera or not; they are well-defined groups except Peucedramus, and 

 that is an isolated or monotvpic form, with characters as well defined as 

 those of many so-called genera which have never or seldom been chal- 

 lenged. The species of Mcrula, however, are all ranged under Tun/its; 

 and, with this single exception, we have no particular fault to find with 

 the treatment of genera, although from the A. O. U. standpoint some of 

 the generic names should be different, or differently spelled, (c. g. My- 

 adestes instead of Myiadectes, Helmitherus instead of Helminthothcrus. 

 llclmiiitJiopkila instead of Helmintkophaga, Compsothlyph instead o\' 

 Pantla, etc.). 



There are a few forms given under names which belong to allied spe- 

 cies or races, but they were either separated subsequent to the printing 

 of the pages on which they occur or so soon before that the authors 

 probably had not become aware of such separation. The bird called 

 Rkodinocichla rosea is a case of this kind; the Mexican bird was 

 named R. rosea sc/iistacea in December, iSyS.f and should probably be 

 ranked as a species, not only on account of its marked differences of color- 

 ation and proportions from R. rosea but also because of the wide separa- 

 tion of its habitat. 



We have already | criticised the change of name in the Cliff Swallow 

 from Petrochelidon luuifrons (Say) to P. fyrrhonota (Vieill.) and the 

 reasons given for objecting to this change we still believe to be valid. 



We have endeavored to point out as fully as possible the defects — from 

 our standpoint — of this work, both as resulting from the insufficient ma- 

 terial examined and the adoption of rules of nomenclature different from 

 those which have been in vogue among American orthinologists, as well 

 as the different views entertained by the authors regarding the question of 

 species and subspecies. The small number of these defects in a work of 

 such, magnitude shows how well the authors of the 'Biologia' have per- 

 formed their task. 



* See Proc. M. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. IX, pp. 147-1 48 . 



tProc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 1, p. 247. 



X Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. IX, p. 139, foot-note. 



