Vol. XIV 
1897 
Recent Literature. 241 
ently had the latter asserted their infallibility, and so vigorously had 
they assailed any who ventured to doubt it, that most peaceable ornithol- 
ogists found it best to bend to the furious blast, and in some sort to 
acquiesce at least in the phraseology of the self-styled interpreters of 
Creative Will.” 
That is an example of the chastening rod to which allusion has been 
made. With it comes the unfailing box of ointment we also mentioned : 
‘But, while thus lamenting this unfortunate perversion into a mistaken 
channel of ornithological energy, we must not over-blame those who 
caused it. Macleay indeed never pretended to a high position in this 
branch of science, his tastes lying in the direction of Entomology; but 
efew of their countrymen knew more of Birds than did Swainson and 
Vigors; and, while the latter, as editor for many years of the Zoological 
Fournal, and the first Secretary of the Zoological Society, has especial 
claims to the regard of all zoologists, so the former’s indefatigable pursuit 
of Natural History, and conscientious labour in its behalf —among other 
ways by means of his graceful pencil — deserve to be remembered asa set- 
ott against the injury he unwittingly caused.” 
A rapid survey of Faunal works is next taken, carrying the subject to 
p- 45- This is necessarily limited ‘‘ to those countries alone which form 
the homes of English peopie, or are commonly visited by them in 
ordinary travel.” In this retrospect American Faunists will find them- 
selves at full proportionate length. 
But the main burden of the Introduction, carried almost to its end, is 
the review of modern systematic Ornithology, “to trace the rise of the 
present more advanced school of ornithologists whose labours, preliminary 
as we must still regard them to be, yet give signs of far greater promise ” 
(p. 45). A difficult task is here self-imposed at the start; it is one of 
peculiar delicacy toward the finish, when living contemporaries, often but 
not always friends, sometimes pupils, must be brought to book to answer 
for their performances. Professor Newton’s idea is, to set forth those 
works and those persons he considers to have rendered the most solid 
service in constructing an enduring morphological Systema Avium upon 
the principle of genetic relationships, in accordance with accepted theories 
or proven facts of evolution. We can possibly indicate by a bare list of 
names the course which Prof. Newton’s treatment of this theme takes. 
The leading names are: Nitzsch — Etienne Geoffroy St.-Hilaire — Tiede- 
mann — Nitzsch— Merrem— De _ Blainville— Nitzsch — Nitzsch apud 
Naumann — L’Herminier — Nitzsch — Berthold — Cuvier — Gloger — 
Sundevall — L’Herminier — Macgillivray —Owen— Blyth —J. F. Brandt 
—Keyserling and Blasius—Nitzsch ed. Burmeister — Kessler — Mac- 
gillivray apud Audubon —J. Mtiller — Cornay — Cabanis — Bonaparte — 
Hogg —E. Newman — Gervais — Blanchard — Eyton— A. B. Meyer — 
Des Murs — Darwin and Wallace — Parker— A. Wagner — Lilljeborg — 
Huxley — A. Milne-Edwards — Marsh — Sundevall—Reichenow — Garrod 
and Forbes — Murie — Wallace — Sclater — Stejneger -— Fiirbringer — 
