282 BRITISH BIRDS. [vol. vm. 



"incarnati." We, however, consider that the description of 

 nilotica by Hasselquist, from which Gmehn took his diagnosis, 

 is fully recognizable ; the only objection is that he describes 

 the feet as " incarnati " ; this is certainly an error, but we 

 cannot reject a name because of an error in the description, 

 if we can make out from the latter that it refers to the species 

 in question. If this practice were followed hundreds of 

 well-known names would have to be rejected. We also 

 hold that the diagnosis of Falco rusticolus to which is added 

 " Habitat in Svecia " must be accepted for the Gyr-Falcon. 



Finally there is the question of the correct name for the 

 Little Dusky Shearwater, No. 324, of our Hand-List. This 

 bird has had many names, and Mr. G. M. Mathews has argued 

 (Birds of Australia, II. (1912), p. 54) that it should be called 

 baroli, and this name has been adopted in the B.O.U. List, 

 but with this we do not agree. On this point Hartert 

 argues as foUows : — 



" Mr. Mathews (B. Austr., II., p. 54) accepted the name baroli 

 for the " Little Dusky Shearwater" (No. 324 of the Hand-List of 

 British Birds), from the North Atlantic Islands, i.e. the Madeira 

 group and Canary Islands. This was apparently done without full 

 consideration of the diagnosis and quotations of Bonaparte, because 

 the supposed type, No. 3202 (not 3203 !) in the Turin Museum is a 

 form of the " Puffiniis obscurus," or more correctly assimilis group. 

 But Bonaparte did not base his new name only on that one specimen 

 in the Turin Museum ; he gave a number of quotations and synonyms, 

 and a diagnosis. He first (Consp. Gen. Av., II., p. 204, 1856) refers 

 to the birds called P. anglorum from the Mediterranean — which are 

 of course what we now call P. puffinus yelkouan ; secondly he quotes 

 P. obscurus Temminck 1840, which appears to be " obscurus " (or 

 assimilis) ; thirdly, he cites Gerini's plate 537, which is a caricature 

 of P. p. yelkouan, then he gives some doubtfxil or nondescript names, 

 he then mentions the unfortunate No. 3202 of Turin — and last, 

 specimens in the collection of Baillon from the Desertas near Madeira, 

 and others in the Paris Muse\im» brought by Berthelot from the 

 Canary Islands, which were apparently P. assimilis subsp., though 

 the large species occurs there as weU. The chief point, however, is 

 the diagnosis. If the latter agreed with the North Atlantic Little 

 Shearwater, then the name baroli might be accepted, though the 

 quotations were partly erroneous, but I cannot agree that the de- 

 scription is a clear one at all. The tarsus is said to be " sesquipollicaris," 

 which means an inch and a half long, French measure, whUe that of 

 the tropical " Puffinus obscurus " is said to have the tarsus much 

 shorter than IJ French inches ; the length of the tarsus, however, 

 is, if anything, greater than smaller in the tropical form ; then 

 Bonaparte says of the Paris specimens from the Canaries that they 

 have a slenderer bill of If inches ! Now the bill of the North Atlantic 

 Little Dusky Shearwater can never be measured If French inches, 

 which is 1.85 Enghsh inches or 48 mm. It must also not be over- 

 looked that the supposed type of P. baroli has no locaUty, as the 

 supposed locality " Mediterranean " is incorrect ; this has all been 

 pointed out in full by Salvadori in Uccelli Fauna It., p. 299 (1872), 



