68 BRITISH BIRDS. [vol. xiv, 



" Calcars." — A Suggestion. — In the transcription given 

 by Mr. Mullens (Vol. XIII., pp. 13-20) of the sixteenth century 

 black letter pamphlet containing the earliest known figure 

 to the Ruff there occurs, on p. 18, the sentence " should no 

 doubt not a little travel [travail], and that not unprofitably, 

 their Wyzards, Calcars, Oracles, and Altars," and the obscurity 

 of the sense of the word Calcars was pointed out. Mr. E. D. K. 

 Harrison has now kindly suggested to us that the anonymous 

 author perhaps had in his mind the ancient soothsayer and 

 prophet Calchas, who was chosen to accompany the Greeks 

 against Troy, and coined the word to indicate his successors 

 or followers. The suggestion, though not quite convincing, 

 certainlv fits the context and is the best vet made. 



REVIEW. 



Handlist of the Birds of Egypt. By M. J. Nicoll. pp. xn, 120. 31 

 plain and col. pi. Cairo, Government Press, 1919. 



In his introduction Mr. M. J. Nicoll states that since Shelley published 

 his Handbook to the Birds of Egypt in 1872, no scientific work dealing 

 entirely with the avifauna of Egypt has been produced. This is not 

 quite accurate, because the second volume of von Heuglin's Ornithologie 

 Nordost-Afrika's was not completed till 1873. The references to this 

 writer in Shelley's work are confined to the first volume of the Orni- 

 thologie, and the very imperfect Svstematische Uebersicht is always 

 referred to in the latter part of the book. Mr. Nicoll seems to have 

 overlooked this, and in consequence to be only partially acquainted 

 with the evidence on which many species should be included. 



Shelley enumerated 352 forms, but many of these had admittedly 

 little or no claim to a place on the Egyptian list. The present work 

 includes no fewer than 436, but about thirty species included by 

 Shelley are now omitted without comment. In most cases we are of 

 opinion that the omission is justified by the circumstances of the case, 

 and there must always be some difference of opinion as to how far 

 " sight-records," unsupported by the evidence of skins, should be 

 accepted. Mr. Nicoll 's treatment of these cases seems to be somewhat 

 inconsistent. He admits about fifteen species to the list on the evidence 

 of one or more examples seen, of which eight or perhaps nine are due 

 to his own observation. In some of these cases, such as Mergus 

 merganser, Dramas ardeola, etc.. it is practically certain that the identifi- 

 cation is correct, but it is surprising to find the British Pied Wagtail, 

 MotaciUa a. lugtibris, included on the strength of one (sex not stated) 

 seen by Mr. Nicoll in winter ! Another unsatisfactory record is the 

 Nuthatch, Sitta sp., seen by Captain S. S. Flower. In our opinion 

 such cases should be included in footnotes, or at any rate in square 

 brackets only, and not numbered, pending further evidence. On the 

 other hand, certain species recorded by former workers on similar 

 evidence are summarily discarded. As an example of this, let us take 

 the case of the Little Bustard. Von Heuglin {Ornith. N.O. Afrika's, 



