IC)2 Recent Literature. [Ai>rii 



should be compelled to recognize an Anarctic Region," which would be 

 characterized by the families Chionidse and Thinocorida;, and which 

 "appears to be also the centre of dispersal of two suborders — the Procel- 

 laridse and the Impennes; so that it must be regarded as a very important 

 Region when the distribution of the whole order Charadriiformes is con- 

 sidered." He does not think it necessary, however, to recognize it for the 

 'Charadriidze,' since so few species of this group visit it for breeding pur- 

 poses. A map illustrates the regions recognized. 



'Chapter VIII. On Subspecific Forms' (pp. 62-65), is thoroughly in 

 harmony' with American notions on this subject, in which Mr. Seebohm 

 rather pointedly contrasts what he terms the "clearheadedness of Amer- 

 ican ornithologists on this point" with the "conservative views of British 

 ornithologists." "It is only doing scant justice," he says, "to American 

 ornithologists to admit that to them belongs the credit of having for the 

 first time formed a clear conception of the difference between a species 

 and a subspecies, and of having at once recognized the fact in a scientific 

 manner in their nomenclature. . . . The primary truth, the recognition of 

 which in some way or other is of vital importance to a clear understand- 

 ing of the facts of Zoology, is that species in the process of differentiation 

 do exist in considerable numbers. . . . The fact of the existence of species 

 which consist of two or more typical forms which are connected together 

 by an unbroken series of intermediate forms between the geographicallj' 

 separated extremes .... is the most important ornithological fact which 

 has been discovered during the last half-century. It is a fact which has 

 been clearly recognized by American ornithologists, and its tardy or 

 doubtful recognition by British writers on birds is one of the psychological 

 puzzles that are very difficult to believe, much less to explain" (pp. 64, 65)- 



Chapters IX-XXX (pp. 66-506), are devoted to the general subject, 

 wherein the 'Charadriida;,' from 'family' down to subspecies, are treated 

 with special reference to their classification and geographical distribution. 

 His descriptions of the several groups are brief, but are, it is claimed, diag- 

 nostic. Keys are provided for the species and genera, which we trust will 

 prove so much more than usually servicable as to warrant the rather sharp 

 critisism our author bestows on the similar attempts of some of his prede- 

 cessors. His references are generally limited to the citations of synonyms, 

 and to a few works treating specially of the habits and eggs of the species 

 or subspecies, or giving figures of the birds or their eggs. Trinomials are 

 consistently employed, but the law of priority is, as usual with Mr. See- 

 bohm, altogether ignored. There is little formal reference to the 'aucto- 

 rum plurimorum' rule,* but in the selection of names, particularly for 

 subspecies, he is governed on some occasions by this principle and in 

 others by his personal preferences. A foot-note on page 100, under 

 Charadrius fulvns a?nertca»us, afi'ovds a case in point: "Of the three 

 names, americanus, dofni'/iic/ts, and virginicus [applied to the American 

 Golden Plover], the first is the most expressive, the second is the oldest, 



* See Auk, 11, 1885, ]•. Cg. 



