224 THE ZOOLOGIST. 
The Eastern form of the Bar-tailed Godwit appears under 
the name of ‘ Limosa lapponica bawert (Naum.)” (No. 250). 
Naumann states that this bird is a long-legged Bar-tailed 
Godwit from New Holland. No hint is given of any character 
by which it may be diagnosed from the Western form. Surely 
this is a nomen nudum, and is effectually barred by Canon 
XXXIv. (p. 49) ! 
The Gull-billed Tern is called ‘‘ Gelochelidon wnilotica 
(Hasselq.)” (No. 63), but, whilst there cannot be any reasonable 
doubt that it was this species which Hasselquist discovered in 
great numbers on the banks of the Nile, one should have thought 
that such ardent devotees of the new Code of Nomenclature as 
the A. O. U. profess to be could scarcely have been blind to the 
obvious meaning of Canons xliii., xliv., and xlv. (pp. 52, 58). 
There can scarcely be any doubt that the Slaty-backed Gull, 
Larus schistisagus (No. 48), and the Siberian Gull (Larus affinis) 
(No. 50), are one and the same species. 
It would, however, be unfair to pass over the points in which 
the Committee of the A. O. U. are far in advance of their English 
pioneers. The existence of sub-species is properly recognised, 
and the multiplication of genera is, we are happy to say, 
mitigated by the degradation of many of them to the rank of 
sub-genera, which do not appear in the nomenclature. 
Of the classification adopted we cannot speak very highly. 
It begins at the end, so to speak, the most highly-developed 
birds being placed last. The A. O. U. prefer to climb up the 
genealogical tree, instead of descending like a bird upon the 
topmost branch, as the Committee of the B. O. U. have attempted 
to do. We fully recognise the impossibility of forming a linear 
arrangement of birds. Such a course involves a choice of 
evils, but to interpose the Ducks (Anseres) and the Herons 
(Herodiones) between such universally recognised allies as the 
Gulls (Longipennes) and the Waders (Limicole) is surely a 
deliberate choice of evil that might have been avoided. 
On the whole, however, the book deserves great praise. Its 
faults, if we may term them such, are apparently not the 
result of carelessness, but of deliberation,—in other words, 
errors of judgment,—and as such pardonable. 
ms) -..~. 
