The Zoologist — August, 1874. 4097 



poses of classification, but still adheres mainly to the fanciful 

 quiuarian arrangement of Vigors, it is probably because he con- 

 siders systematic arrangement of minor importance, and prefers 

 adopting the general provisions of a system he finds ready made, 

 to the arduous and most thankless task of constructing a new one. 

 In conclusion, I may truly say that although quite aware of some 

 little imperfections in the ' Birds of Great Britain,' it certainly lays 

 the foundation, and contains the enduring materials, for the ultimate 

 completion of that natural classification which, taking the diversity 

 of the early stages of independent bird-life for its guide, must 

 sooner or later supersede alike the structural and fanciful systems 

 which have hitherto so perplexed us. All honour be to Mr. Gould 

 for his labours : may they be crowned with every success ! 



Edwaed Newman. 



Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalists' Society. 

 1873-4. Demy 8vo. 86 pp. Td. Supplement, 80 pp. 



The papers contained are — 



I. Fauna and Flora of Norfolk. Part IV. Fishes. By John 

 Lowe, M.D. 



II. On Breeding Lepidoptera in Confinement. By F. D.Wheeler. 



III. On Empusa Musca and other Micro-Fungi. By F. Kitto. 



IV. On the Nidification of Prosopis. By J. B. Bridgman. 



V. Meteorological Observations. By John Quentin. 



VI. Miscellanea. 



{Stipplement). Fauna and Flora of Norfolk. PartV. Lepidoptera. 

 By Charles G. Barrett. 



Dr. Lowe's "Fishes of Norfolk" is a list prepared with evident 

 care, and interspersed and enriched with notes from a variety 

 of other sources. It is probably known that Mr. Gunn has for 

 years past been preparing for publication in the 'Zoologist' a 

 " Catalogue of the Fishes of Norfolk and Suffolk," and I always 

 regret to see two naturalists expending their energies on the same 

 subject, unless co-operating with each other and intending to make 

 a joint result of their labours. The number of subjects that require 

 the pen of the monographer is now so great, and the field of labour 

 so wide, that I must regard this duplicate production as a some- 

 what wasteful expenditure of time and talent. In Dr. Lowe's list 



