August 20, 1885] 
made to put a value upon these increased quantities. In 
valuing wheat at 5s. per bushel and straw at 2/. per ton 
the compilers of the report made a great mistake, of 
which their critic has not been slow to avail himself, 
Here he “shells” them unmercifully and effectually, 
_ especially as the straw at 2/. per ton turns out to be the 
chief item for turning loss into profit. 
This is, however, entirely an artificial value, the result 
of restricted supply, and Sir Thomas’ is perfectly justified 
in dismissing the item entirely by compounding it with 
the cost of the farmyard manure, letting straw and 
manure mutually discharge each other’s claims. 
Another point successfully urged is the smallness of the 
plots. What possiblereliancecan be placedupon plots 112th 
of an acre in which pounds per plot are at once alleged to 
represent hundredweights per acre. The multiplication 
of unavoidable errors, and the exaggerations of extremely 
local differences in the soil itself, are simply fearful to 
think of. The larger the area the better. If acre-plots 
could be used so much the better, and to-acre plots would 
be better still—the only limit in size being, to our mind, 
convenience. But 112th parts of acres must induce a 
feeling of distrust in the breasts of those who are practic- 
ally acquainted with land. The sources of error may be 
enumerated as follows :—imperfect distribution, unavoid- 
able waste in distribution, minute differences in the soil, 
irregular germination of the seed, partial insect attacks, 
direct accidental injuries or the reverse (as, for example, 
an animal trespassing upon a plot, or a horse dropping 
his dung upon it), errors in weighing, errors in severance 
from the ground, and other unavoidable difficulties which 
belong to the carrying out of field experiments,—all of | 
these errors are magnified in the case of small plots, and 
minimised by the use of large ones. In these directions 
the criticisms made by Sir Thomas Acland are valuable: 
but we should like to have seen a greater sympathy with 
an honest effort, and less anxiety to hold up any results of 
value as stale, antiquated, and unnecessary. 
Any one who has lived as long as Sir Thomas Dyke 
Acland must know that the proclamation of things old as 
things new is not confined to agricultural chemists, and 
he should be more ready to accept as inevitable the 
dictum of the wise man, that “the thing that hath been, it 
is that which shall be; and that which is done is that 
which shall be done.” 
THE NEW EDITION OF “ VYARRELL’S 
BRITISH BIRDS” 
A History of British Birds. By the late William Yarrell, 
V.P.L.S., F.Z.S. Fourth Edition, Revised to the End 
of the Second Volume by Alfred Newton, M.A., F.R.S., 
continued by Howard Saunders, F.L.S., F.Z.S. 
xx.-xxx, (London: Van Voorst.) 
HE students of British birds have at last received the 
two final numbers of the new edition of Yarrell’s 
celebrated work on their favourite subject, which was 
commenced as long ago as 1871. Fourteen years, it 
must be acknowledged, is a long time to wait, but on the 
other hand the subscribers to the new “ Yarrell” have in 
compensation of the delay not what would be called in 
ordinary parlance a new edition, but what is, in fact, a 
Parts j 
NATURE 
363 
our knowledge of this subject, prepared by two of the 
greatest living authorities on British ornithology. 
The two first volumes of the fourth edition of ‘“ Yarrell’s 
British Birds,” which were brought to a conclusion by 
Prof. Newton in 1882, were devoted to the birds of prey, 
the passerine birds, and the picarians. In June of that 
year Mr. Saunders ‘undertook to finish the work, “ not 
willingly nor with a light heart,” but, as he tells us, “after 
considerable pressure and at much personal sacrifice.” 
Forewarned by what had previously occurred, Mr. Van 
Voorst insisted that time must be part of the “ essence of 
the contract,” and stipulated with the new editor for the 
completion of the third and fourth volumes by June 1885, 
which, after aliowing for six months’ leave of absence, 
gave Mr. Saunders only two years and a half to prepare 
his account of nearly two hundred species. It cannot be 
denied that this was somewhat severe upon the new 
editor, and that, considering the pressure brought to bear 
upon him, the mode in which he has completed his task 
within the time assigned to him, deserves our highest 
compliments, 
As has been already pointed out the so-called new 
“Yarrell” is, in fact, a new work. The vast amount of 
knowledge of British birds and their distribution acquired 
during the forty-two years which -have elapsed since 
Yarrell’s original work first appeared, rendered it abso- 
lutely necessary that such should be the case. It would 
have been much better, in our opinion, to have discarded 
the name of Yarrell altogether, and to have employed the 
leading ornithologist of the period to write a new work 
on British birds. But as Mr. Van Voorst, doubtless for 
sufficient reasons, preferred to retain the time-honoured 
name of Yarrell on the title-page, the new ‘‘editors” as 
they call themselves have, we think, surmounted the diffi- 
culties of their position with singular success. Where 
practicable, we are told, the original phraseology has 
been followed with due modifications, the opening words 
of the sentences have been preserved, and extracts from 
the authors and correspondents quoted by Yarrell have 
been retained. “‘ This work of selection and adaptation 
has,” we can well believe, “ entailed severe labour.” It is 
obvious, in fact, that it would have been a much simpler 
task to write most of the articles new from the beginning 
than to adapt those prepared by the original author fifty 
years ago to present use. The former plan would also, 
we think, have been more satisfactory to the reader, who 
between the “author” and the two “editors” and the 
friends and correspondents of each of them, is in many 
cases likely to be misled as to the real authority quoted 
for a particular statement. 
While, as we have already said, the general execution 
of the “new Yarrell” merits our entire commendation, 
the systematic arrangement—an unsuccessful effort at a 
compromise between the old fashion and the new—does 
not seem to deserve equal praise. No doubt the order 
adopted by first editor for the three groups treated of in 
the first two volumes placed the second editor in a diffi- 
culty. But we cannot think that Mr. Saunders was 
thereby justified in relegating the Steganopodes, Herodi- 
ones and Anseres to the end of the series. With these 
groups he should have begun the second volume, not 
finished the third. At the same time it must be borne in 
complete and exhaustive summary of the present state of : mind that the primary object was not a strictly orthodox 
