566 Recently published Ornithological Works. 



authorities on British birds? Our complaint is that it is 

 much too good for the antiquated illustrations. 



After a well-written preface, which contains a highly ap- 

 preciative sketch of the leading authorities on this familiar 

 subject, Dr. Sharpe gives us his reasons for preferring the 

 " handbook " form in the present work. This form he follows 

 throughout. Under the head of each species are given para- 

 graphs describing the various plumages of the male, female, 

 and young, the range of the bird in Great Britain, its area 

 outside the British Islands, and the habits, nest, and eggs in 

 successive order. 



All this part of the volume is satisfactory. But there is 

 one point upon which, as Dr. Sharpe well knows, we are 

 entirely opposed to his views and practice ; this is his nomen- 

 clature. When, in 1883, the Committee of the B. O. U. on 

 Nomenclature, of which Dr. Sharpe was himself a member, 

 printed and published the ' List of British Birds,' we had 

 fondly hoped that this thorny question was finally settled for 

 ourselves, and that at least the members of the Committee 

 would agree to abide generally by the rules which they had 

 themselves settled. Of course it is obvious that there might 

 be minor alterations required (such, for example, as the sub- 

 stitution of Plectrophenax for Plectrophanes), to which no 

 one would raise the slightest objection. But Dr. Sharpe has 

 introduced such wholesale changes into his list that we 

 scarcely know our familiar friends under their unfamiliar 

 names. This is mainly owing first to his adoption of what 

 is called the " Scomber-scomber principle,'^ whereby some 

 30 British birds are saddled with the same generic and specific 

 names — a principle deliberately rejected by the Stricklandian 

 Code and by the B. O. U. Committee. But a second and 

 not less important cause of disturbance is the introduction of a 

 quantity of new and, as we believe, wholly unnecessary generic 

 names. Thus, instead of using Corvus for the Crows^ which 

 together constitute a well-marked group, we are invited to 

 call them by four different generic terms — Trypanocorax, 

 Corvus, Culceus, and Corone. No one could really say that these 

 divisions are equal in rank to Nucifraga, Pica, Pyrrhocorax, 



