NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS. 461 
Nomenclature proposed by the British Association Committee, 
and, so far as we have had leisure to follow him, he would seem to 
have arrived at very correct results. We differ from him, however, 
at starting, on one or two rather material points. Speaking of the 
uses of the present ‘ List,’ in his prefatory remarks, he says, “it 
shows at a glance what birds may rightly be considered British.” 
In this we do not agree. Mr. Wharton defines a British bird as 
one which has at least once, beyond a doubt, occurred in a truly 
wild state within the area of the British Isles, while we cannot but 
think that no true estimate of the British Avifauna can be arrived 
‘at unless the rare and purely accidental visitants to this country be 
carefully distinguished from the resident species and such as are 
periodical and regular immigrants. Hence we are unable to 
admit that such birds as Pycnonolus capensis, Ageleus phoeniceus, 
Sturnella magna, Coccyzus americanus, and a host of others, 
which have no claim to be regarded even as palearctic species, 
“may rightly be considered British.” 
Nor can we agree with Mr. Wharton that his ‘ List of British 
Birds’ shows “to a certain extent their affinities.” That it does 
so in a large number of instances we admit, but in many others 
a very erroneous impression is conveyed. Take, for example, 
Melizophilus undatus and Panurus biarmicus, above referred to. 
What are their affinities according to the present List? The 
first-named appears to be most nearly allied to Cinclus aquaticus 
on the one side and to Troglodytes parvulus on the other; the 
second is placed between Anthus Richardi and Accentor collaris ; 
and yet in neither case can it be said that there is the slightest 
degree of “affinity,” in the proper acceptation of the term, with 
the genera to which each is contiguous. We are not amongst 
those who delight in the subdivision of genera, a process which, in 
our opinion, is now-a-days carried a great deal too far, and we 
cannot help thinking that Mr. Wharton’s List would be more 
acceptable to British ornithologists had fewer subdivisions been 
-adopted. To place eight species of River Warblers in five 
different genera, and to have eight different genera for as many 
species of Owl is a process of refining which seems to us quite 
unnecessary, while it tends to destroy the value of the binomial 
system. If every genus or subgenus is to contain but one species 
(as it seems likely will one day be the case), it would be simpler to 
give each species one name instead of two. On the other hand, if 
