384 Bibliographical Notice. 
__. First of all, in such a case, to make his descriptions complete and’ 
of the most service, the author should make them also comparative. 
This Mr. Layard has not done. His deseriptions have been penned 
at various times and in various places, which was probably unavoid- 
able; but, then, they should have been subsequently compared with 
one another, so as to ensure theirsymmetry. For species the author 
has not himself seen, of course he is quite right to quote the original 
descriptions unaltered ; and this, the safest plan, Mr. Layard appears 
to have followed. But we are speaking of descriptions written by 
himself; and the “broken and disjointed style” for which he in a 
measure apologizes in his “preface” is here unnecessary: it not 
merely disfigures the book, but is an absolute hindrance to its 
utility. 
The next important point is that the author of such a Catalogue 
as the present should be very precise in quoting from his predeces- 
sors. But here there is much room for improvement. Mr. Layard 
is weakest in his ‘‘bookwork.” We have no bibliographical in- 
formation afforded us, no list of authorities given, and the references 
to the publications cited are now put in one form and now in another, 
while many, and these most necessary, references are not made at all. 
This is especially to be regretted in a book on South-African birds ; 
for respecting the ornithology of few parts of the world are the mate- 
rials so widely scattered and so little digested. It would have been 
a great achievement for Mr. Layard to have drawn up his references 
on a well-arranged system. Very likely it would have been a. 
troublesome job, but still one quite feasible and quite worth the 
labour bestowed upon it. Besides, we are much mistaken if it 
could have been done anywhere better than at Cape Town. Take 
for instance the numerous contributions to South-African ornitho- 
logy by Sir Andrew Smith. In this country we doubt whether any 
library contains a complete series of them. Some of his descriptions 
originally appeared in newspapers published in the colony; and at, 
the Cape, if anywhere, copies of these papers should be accessible. 
Now Mr. Layard evinces no sign of having made search for them, 
and yet, from all we have heard of the public library of Cape Town, 
they are to be found there. 
We do not make these depreciatory observations without reason. 
The fact is that Mr. Layard’s book, as far as it goes, is so good and 
so useful, that it ought to be better and more useful. He modestly 
says of it that “it is a move forwards, and may serve as a founda- 
tion for the labours of others whose opportunities may be greater.” 
But we would impress upon Mr. Layard that he has the greatest 
opportunities of any one. We believe that he has informed his 
friends at home that he is already preparing a second edition. We 
are very glad to hear it; but we trust he will take care that the 
work undergoes a very thorough revision before a second edition is 
printed. Moreover we venture, in addition to the hints for its 
improvement given above, to recommend him to eliminate all those 
species, now included, which he himself shows have been erroneously 
introduced in the South-African fauna. By doing this he will leave 
