538 Mr. P. L. Sclater on the Geographical 



incursion of numerous forms from the Neotropical Region, 

 and it has moreover many well-marked independent forms 

 (such as Chamcea, Gymnocitta, and nearly all the Mniotiltidse) 

 present in it, of which the origin is slightly obscure. Mr. Wal- 

 lace, in the second volume of his ' Geographical Distribution/ 

 has given us a list of no less than 47 typical Nearctic genera of 

 land- birds, while the number of genera which may be regarded 

 as common to the Nearctic and Palsearctic Regions is only 22. 

 These and other facts urged by Mr. Wallace fully establish 

 the claim of temperate North America to be regarded as a 

 Region apart, distinct alike from the Palcearctic on the one 

 side and the Neotropical on the other. 



(c) Subregions. — There is still much uncertainty as to the 

 best mode of dividing up the Nearctic Region into smaller 

 areas. American naturalists have hitherto usually accepted 

 three provinces as belonging to this region — an Eastern, 

 Central, and Western. Dr. Merriam, however, who has 

 recently studied the subject (88), claims to be able to show 

 that there are but two primary life-areas in the Nearctic 

 Region — a northern (Boreal) and a southern (Subtropical), 

 and that the former views must consequently be abandoned. 

 It remains still to see whether Dr. Merriam's proposed 

 reform will be accepted by his brother Avurkers in the United 

 States. 



The standard work upon Nearctic Ornithology is that of 

 Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway (89), of which the three volumes 

 containing the land-birds were published in 1874. The two 

 volumes containing the water-birds (90) were not issued 

 until ten years later. But as regards nomenclature and for 

 ordinary purposes of reference the American ornithologists 

 now employ the ' Check-list of North -American Birds,' 

 published by the American Ornithologists' Union in 1886 

 (91), together with a supplement of 1889 (92). It is hardly 

 necessary upon the present occasion to criticize the principles 

 of nomenclature upon which the well-known ' Check-list ' 

 has been based, and which have led to results rather dis- 

 tasteful to many European ornithologists. I may, how- 

 ever, I hope wdthout oft'euce, say that in my opinion the 



