Recently published Ornithological Works. 171 



for a complete list of British Birds, printed in such a 

 form that it could be cut up and used for labelling 

 specimens, Mr. Ogilvie-Grant has prepared the present 

 catalogue, which is specially adapted for that purpose. So 

 many additions to the British Avifauna have been made 

 since Howard Saunders's ' List of British Birds ' was revised 

 in 1907 that a new list was much wanted. 



The new List contains the names of 442 species, 

 considered to be entitled to a place in the British Avifauna. 

 Besides these, Mr. Ogilvie-Grant gives the names of others, 

 of which ''the history is doubtfuP' or "which liave, 

 perhaps, been artificially introduced," but these names 

 are not numbered and are placed in square brackets. The 

 442 numbered species are divided into five categories : — 

 (1) Residents; (2) Regular Summer Visitors that Breed; 

 (3) Regular Autumn, Winter, or Spring Visitors that do 

 not Breed ; (4) Occasional Visitors that in former days used 

 to Breed ; (5) Occasional Visitors that have never been known 

 to Breed. The exact "status" of each bird, according to 

 the author's view, is clearly shown in a series of columns 

 following its name, so that it is very readily ascertainable. 



Another good feature in this List is that the names of 

 the numerous species recently added to the British Avifauna 

 are all carefully inserted in their places, and references are 

 given to the works in which their occurrences in this 

 country have been recorded. This will make the List very 

 useful to the collector, who, up to the present time, has 

 been obliged to hunt up such records in a dozen different 

 periodicals. But, on the other hand, the classification 

 adopted, which appears to be nearly that of the Bird-Gallery 

 in the British Museum, beginning with the lower forms 

 and ending with the Passeres, will, in our opinion, be far 

 from popular. The author quotes Saunders's ' Manual ' 

 throughout his List, and refers to Saunders's dicta con- 

 tinually. Why, then, did he not use Saunders's classification, 

 which is nearly the same as that of the ' Ibis List,' and 

 is familiar to all British Ornithologists ? We are also 

 of opinion that the addition of the authority to the scientific 



