172 Recent Literature. 



half, Ave feel assured the sacrifice of quantity to quality would generally be 

 regarded as for the better. 



In his classification Mr. Maynard has departed in many particulars from 

 beaten paths, the basis for most of his changes being anatomical. That 

 he has labored diligently in this field of study is apparent, but Ave cannot 

 but feel that he has moved someAvhat in the dark respecting Avhat other 

 workers have done. It not infrequently appears, too, as though his desire for 

 originality were, in a great measure, responsible for the positions taken, and 

 that in striving for this he often fails critically to examine all the considera- 

 tions involved. This is shown in his liability to overestimate the relative 

 value of osteological over external characters, he often, indeed, appearing 

 to ignore the latter entirely. As an instance the genus Siurus is placed, as 

 has been done before, next the typical Thrushes, mainly, as appears, because 

 of sternal similarities, although the author states that he can find " but 

 two constant characters by Avhich Siurus can be distinguished from Turdus, 

 viz. the universally smaller size and the more conical and longer bill in 

 proportion to the size of the bird." He thus apparently ignores or over- 

 looks the fact of the possession by the Siuri of only nine pri7naries. What- 

 ever may be thought of the proper position of the genus this fact would 

 appear to be sufficient to exclude it from among the ten-primaried birds. 



The extreme subdivision of the Owls appears to rest chiefly upon osteo- 

 logical features. No fewer than five families are recognized ! Buho and 

 Nyctea, we notice, are placed in different families, although some authors 

 experience difficulty in distinguishing them generically. The order 

 Falconi (sic) is similarly subdivided. The use of general terms in the 

 anatomical descriptions, instead of positive or even relative measurements, 

 is reprehensible. Thus, " sternum high," or " coracoids short," fails to 

 convey any meaning to the ordinary student, and would prove too indefi- 

 nite even to the skilled anatomist. In anatomy, if anyAvhere, the strictest 

 accuracy is a prime essential, and Avithout it words are meaningless. 



In the Preface the author calls attention to a somewhat novel principle, 

 Avhich he puts into practice later; viz. that when an author raises a variety 

 to specific rank he may discard the original describer's name and apply a 

 new one. We presume that the converse treatment would be held to give 

 the same right, and that the degradation of a species to varietal rank 

 also involves the right of re-naming. Either or both i^rinciples once 

 admitted would result in a signal change of our nomenclature. Individual 

 opinion must always have largely to do with the exact rank of forms, 

 whether as species or varieties. But if each author is at liberty to re- 

 name every bird concerning whose status he chooses to differ from other 

 authorities, and about which he may himself find it necessary to reverse his 

 judgment as new facts are brought to light, Ave may once and for all 

 abandon the idea of any stability to our nomenclature. But we have no 

 fear that such a mischievous principle will find favor, since most ornithol- 

 ogists are agreed that the confusion is bad enough already. The case of 



