310 Recently published Ornithological Works. 



uumerous geographical forms or subspecies^ whicli it is in 

 some cases extremely difficult to discriminate satisfactorily. 

 In one instance Mr. Grant has taken the decided step of 

 reuniting all the subspecies created by our American brethren 

 for the various climatic races of the Nearctic Ptarmigan into 

 one species — Lagopus rupestris. He might, perhaps, have done 

 well to carry the same principle a little further. The generic 

 term " Pedioceetes " is more correctly written Pedioscetes, as 

 will be seen by reference to former volumes of ' The Ibis ' — 

 the derivation being irehiov, a plain, and oIktjtt]'^, an inhabitant, 

 " Pedioccetes " is nonsense, and we are pleased to see that the 

 fad of preferring precedence to sense is not insisted upon in 

 the pi'csent work. We observe, however, that '' Bonasa" — 

 a term obviously taken from the European Tetrao bonasia — 

 has been transferred to the American Tetrao umbellus, and 

 that a different name {Tetrastes) is assigned to the latter. 

 In our opinion these two closely allied species might well 

 have been allowed to remain in the same genus. 



Next to the Grouse are placed the Phasianidse, with their 

 59 genera. Although we agree with the author that it 

 is very difficult to draw the exact line between Pheasants 

 and Partridges, we think it would have been advisable to 

 break up this enormous multitude into subfamilies. At any 

 rate, the Odontophorince, Numidinse, and Meleagrinee might 

 have been set apart, and the Pheasants and Peafowl separated 

 from the Partridges and Quails. 



Concerning the difficult question of Lojjhura ignita and its 

 allied species, we cannot quite agree with the treatment of 

 them adopted in the Catalogue. Following Elliot (Ibis, 

 1878, p. 411), Mr. Grant wishes to fix the name ignitus of 

 Shaw and Nodder on to the Bornean Fireback. The original 

 plate (Nat. Misc. 321) is a wretched daub, and may have 

 been drawn from either Evplocamus nobilis, Scl., or E. ignitus 

 (Gm.), as discriminated in P. Z. S. 1863, p. 119. As this 

 must ever remain a matter of opinion, we see no justification 

 for reversing the decision already given on the point, that the 

 name ignitus is best applicable to the latter. Mr. Grant 

 consigns this last-mentioned form to a footnote, forgetting 



