Recent Literature. \ .243 



negligence, or ignorance were discovered in our habitual use of names. 

 It was therefore determined to submit the current catalogue of North 

 American birds to a rigid examination, with reference to the spelling, 

 pronunciation, and derivation of every name — in short, to revise the list 

 from a philological as well as an ornithological standpoint." 



"The purpose of the present 'Check List' is thus distinctly seen to be 

 two-fold : First, to present a complete list of the birds now known to 

 inhabit North America, north of Mexico, and including Greenland, to 

 classify them systematically, and to name them conformably with current 

 rules of nomenclature; these being ornithological matters of science. 

 Secondly, to take each word occurring in such technical usage, explain its 

 derivation, significance, and application, spell it correctly, and indicate 

 its pronunciation with the usual diacritical marks; these being purelv 

 philological matters, afl:ecting not the scientific status of any bird, but 

 the classical questions involved in its name" (pp. 3, 4). 



The analysis of the two editions shows that of the 120 additions to the 

 old list the large majority are bona fide species, and actual acquisitions 

 to the North American list, being birds discovered since 1873 i^i Texas, 

 Arizona, and Alaska, together with several long known to inhabit Green- 

 land, which had never been formally included in the "North American" 

 list at the time Dr. Coues's first Check List was issued, though the Green- 

 land Fauna, even then, was generally claimed and conceded to be North 

 American. Beside these, the increment is represented by species or 

 varieties named as new to science since 1S73, by a few restored to the list, 

 and by two {Passer vtontanits and Coturiiix dactylisonans) imported and 

 now naturalized species. 



The author states that the list includes the names of some twenty or 

 thirty sub-species which "my conservatism would not have allowed me to 

 describe as valid, and the \'alidity of which I can scarcely endorse," but 

 which are retained because "I preferred, in preparing a 'Check List' for 

 general purposes, rather to present the full number of names in current 

 usage, and let them stand for what they may be worth, than to exercise 

 any right of private judgment, or make any critical investigation of the 

 merits of disputed cases." In view of this declaration, however, we fail 

 to understand why such names as Carfodacus piirpuretis californicus, 

 Chondestes grammicus strigatus, Picus villosus leiecomelas. Bubo virgini- 

 anns subarctt'ciis. Bubo x>irginia?ius saturatus^ and Oreortyx ficta flumi- 

 fera should have been denied a place. Nor can we approve the exclusion 

 of certain Audubonian species "not since identified," as well as some of 

 Giraud's, which there is no good reason to doubt were actually taken in 

 Texas. "A few Cape St. Lucas birds have been so long in the 'North 

 American' list that it is not thought worth while to displace them"; but 

 does not this consideration apply with equal force to many of the Mexican 

 species which are excluded 1 Our present southern boundary is a political, 

 not a natural one, but this is all the more reason why it should be rigidly 

 adhered to if followed at all. As Dr. Coues remarks, however, it would be 

 far more satisfactory, from a scientific standpoint, to ignore the present 



