542 



NATURE 



[Oct. 25, 1877 



The descriptions of the species are, especially in the first 

 volume, by far too long. Short diagnoses would be of 

 much greater assistance to naturalists using the work for 

 the determination of species. It may be said, no doubt, 

 that such diagnoses are given in the tabular keys of the 

 species under the head of each genus. This is true to a 

 certain extent ; at the same time these keys only refer to 

 one point of difference between allied species, and if a 

 student misses the particular key selected by Mr. Sharpe 

 he will find it very difficult to open the lock. If instead 

 of the lengthened description, a short diagnosis were 

 given and remarks on the points of difference between 

 the species in question and its nearest allies were 

 appended, the result would be at least of equal, if not of 

 greater value, to the working ornithologist, and at the 

 same time the work would be materially shortened. 

 Nothing serves so clearly to explain the character of an 

 unknown object as reference to an object well known and 

 a specification of the points of difference. Such parti- 

 culars, now universally added by naturalists to their 

 characters of species, are rarely to be found in Mr. 

 Sharpe's catalogue. 



One other point we will mention — that we trust Mr. 

 Sharpe will consider seriously in the preparation of future 

 volumes. The golden rule of priority and the canons of 

 the Stricklandian Code of Nomenclature are now gene- 

 rally accepted by all zoologists. But like many other 

 things that are excellent, " priority " may be pushed to a 

 ridiculous extent, and some writers seem determined to 

 disgust people with it if they can. The chief object of 

 the rule of priority is the attainment of a uniform nomen- 

 clature. Unless, therefore, there is a stringent necessity 

 in obedience to its rule to alter a generally-recognised 

 name, it is only defeating the object in view to propose 

 such a change. But we regret to observe that Mr. 

 Sharpe not unfrequently strains the laws of priority in 

 order to alter well-known and universally adopted titles, 

 both of genera and species. For example, Linnajus 

 called the well-known kestrel Falco tinnunciilus, i.e., the 

 " Bell Falcon." In 1S07 the French naturalist, Vieillot, 

 made the group of kestrels into a genus, for which 

 he proposed to use the name Tinmmculiis — and this 

 practice has been generally followed by all ornitho- 

 logists who have considered the group of kestrels as 

 worthy of generic rank. But Mr. Sharpe now wishes 

 to reject the generic name Tinimnculns in favour of 

 a subsequently-given appellation, upon the ground, we 

 suppose, that the species first given in Vieillot's list of 

 Tinnunculi is not a true kestrel. This may be the case, 

 but it cannot be doubted that when Vieillot founded his 

 genus, TiniiHiiculiis, the species most in his eye was the 

 Falco tiiinunculus, and that that species should be taken 

 as the true type of his genus.' Again, a well-known 

 South American bird of prey is universally' known as 

 Spizaetes ornatus. Mr. Sharpe would have it termed 

 Spizaetus mauduyti, solely because, although both the 

 names were published in the same work at the same date, 

 the latter is given four pages before the former. We 

 cannot believe that even the great authority of the British 

 Museum will induce naturalists to recognise such grounds 

 for the displacement of familiar names. 



" Mr. Sharpe gives, as the name to be adopted for the Common Kestrel, 

 Circhneis i!itKu>Kuia~Sifpixenlly under the idea that Timiimcuius is an 

 adjective. 



These, however, are but minor defects in a work that is 

 generally well arranged and well executed. Further than 

 this, we have only to remark that Mr. Sharpe might have 

 done better to adopt some one general classification in its 

 entirety rather than to attempt to amalgamate several 

 hardly-to-be-reconciled systems into one of his own. But 

 whatever his classification may result in, there can be no 

 question of the influence the " Catalogue of Birds" will 

 have on the progress of ornithological science, and we 

 heartily wish the author health and strength to terminate 

 his labours at an earlier period than that which we have 

 assigned to them. 



THE ALPS 



Die Nalnrkrdfte in dcr Alpen, oder pliysikalische 



Geographic des Alpengchirges, von Dr. Friedrich 



Pfaff, O. Professor in der Universitiit, Eriangen. 



(Miinchen: Oldenbourg, 1877.) 



'T^HIS is a thoroughly unsatisfactory book. The title 



-1- is attractive, and in spite of all that has been 

 written about the Alps of late years, a treatise such as 

 is here promised is very much wanted. Such a work if 

 taken in hand by a master of physical science capable of 

 grasping together the varied phenomena and exhibiting 

 vividly their mutual bearings and relations, would be of 

 engrossing interest, and could scarcely fail to throw new 

 light upon many obscure questions of science. Failing 

 this, there is room for a work in which the results of 

 recent exploration and scientific observation should be 

 carefully collected, intelligently arranged, and clearly set 

 forth. Such a book might not attract many of those who 

 have no personal experience of the Alps, but would be 

 welcomed by thousands who have keen recollections 

 of enjoyment among the great mountains, and would fain 

 learn something of the nature and laws of the giant forces 

 within whose sphere they have moved. Along with the 

 primary, though no way common, qualifications of accu- 

 racy and clearness, the writer of such a work should have 

 such a firm hold^of physical principles as should enable him 

 to mark distmctly the limits of the territory conquered by 

 modern science, and distinguish the conclusions which 

 are definitely established from those that are more or less 

 imperfectly proved,?or merely to be ranked as conjectural 

 explanations. 



In none of these respects does Prof. Pfaff show himself 

 competent for the work he has undertaken. Except in 

 regard to glacier controversies, where his reading is a 

 little more extended, he appears very ill acquainted with 

 what has been written about the Alps in England, Italy, 

 and France during the last quarter of a century ; he is 

 strangely inaccurate, especially as to names and numbers, 

 and often sadly deficient in clearness ; and finally, there 

 is a complete want of definiteness [in his statements as to 

 the more interesting of the disputed questions discussed 

 in his work. 



A disproportionate share, ^; more than a third of the 

 volume, is taken up with what may be called the statistics 

 of the Alps — their division into groups, numerical state- 

 ments as to the heights of peaks, the dimensions of valleys 

 and lakes, the volume of mountain ridges, and various 

 other orographic elements, some of which do not admit 

 of accurate numerical statement, and others are of trivial 



