522 
NATURE 
[Oc¢. 1, 1885 
unquestionably far surpassed himas scientific ornithologists, 
indeed the scientific value of his works is very slight ; but 
hardly any one had such an eye for a species, or could in 
a dozen words or so point out how it could be recognised. 
It is no doubt in consequence of this that so few of the 
species described by him have failed to be considered 
good by his successors. 
The ornithologists of the New World are in one respect 
very fortunate. They are not encumbered by the enormous 
dead weight of synonomy that is so burdensome to their 
brethren of effete Europe ; and, thanks to the steadfastness 
with which the North Americans follow the use of a nomen- 
clature fixed by authority, they will probably be for ever 
exempt from much of the evil which afflicts the more 
independent writers of the Old World, almost each of 
whom likes to be a law unto himself. Whether the 
nomenclature now accepted in the United States and in 
Canada be founded on the best principle is a matter that 
need not be here discussed. It has been reduced to a 
practice the real advantage of which none can doubt. 
But that this state of things is possible arises in great 
measure from the fact that in one sense a very small 
number of North American birds have an ancient history 
such as is possessed by nearly all the European species, 
though of this ancient history the compilers of synonymy 
in general give but a feeble notion. Few things are more 
misleading than a long list of synonyms, such as is too 
often regarded as a test of an author’s industry and 
knowledge. It almost always happens that in a list of 
this kind bad accounts and good are made to appear as 
though they stood, as it were, on an equal footing, and it 
not unfrequently occurs that a reference to the best 
account of a species may be wholly omitted, while a fan- 
tastic name introduced by some compiler or catalogue- 
maker, who perhaps never examined or even set eyes on 
a specimen, receives notice as if it were an important 
contribution to the history of the creature. If Americans 
suffered from this grievance to the same extent as 
Europeans do, we suspect that the ingenuity of the former 
would lead them to find some remedy for it, but they 
may bless their stars that they are comparatively free 
from it. 
Every well-informed ornithologist knows that the 
systematic arrangement of birds presents a series of 
puzzles which as yet defy solution. Still, some steps 
towards the clearing away of the old trammels have been 
taken by various persons, and a few positions that may be 
looked upon as established have been gained. We are 
sorry to find so little in these volumes suggestive of further 
advance. The writers seem to be still enchained in the 
toils which the artificial system of Sundevall drew around 
the subject, and in the very brief space—barely two pages 
—thereto devoted, we have “altricial” and “precocial,” 
“cymnopzedic,” and “ dasypeedic” groups spoken of as if 
they were to be believed in. It is true that the arrange- 
ment adopted is said to be “not strictly natural ;” but in 
the same paragraph are some other statements as to 
affinities or the reverse that we hope the author may live 
to repent. However we freely admit that the main object 
of these volumes is not to teach systematic ornithology, 
and therefore perhaps the less said on that contentious 
subject the better. They will, there can be no doubt, 
admirably fulfill the chief purpose for which they are 
intended, and enormously further the study of birds in 
English-speaking America. It would be out of place here 
to enter upon any minute criticism of their contents, and, 
while indicating in a general way, as we have attempted 
to do and as we conceive we are in duty bound, some of 
their shortcomings, we can strongly recommend them as 
on the whole justifying the high degree of expectation 
that had prevailed concerning them prior to their publi- 
cation. Assuredly we shall have to wait long before 
another so comprehensive and, taking it all in all, so 
excellent an account of “The Water Birds of North 
America” is likely to make its appearance, and once 
more we tender our thanks to each and every one of those 
who have been concerned in the work, though we may 
perhaps make a reservation in regard to the wood- 
engraver. 
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 
[ The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed 
by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake to return, 
or to correspond with the writers of, rejected manuscripts. 
No notice is taken of anonymous communications. 
[The Editor urgently requests correspondents to keep their letters 
as short as possible, The pressure on his space is so great 
that it ts impossible otherwise to insure the appearance even 
of communications containing interesting and novel facts. | 
The New Star in Andromeda 
THE information furnished by a photograph of the Great 
Nebula in Andromeda taken last year may be of value, particu- 
larly in relation to the presumed variability of the new star. 
An examination shows that no star brighter than about the 15th 
magnitude was then in the position now occupied by the new 
star. 
This photograph was a trial plate taken on August 16 between 
toh. and r1h., with an exposure of 30 minutes of the 3-foot 
reflector. With this exposure the impression of the nebula is very 
Scale o'r inch = 100”. 
small for such a bright object as it appears in the telescope, 
being limited to about 2 minutes of arc around the nucleus 
, (which was bright and round), not much more than is shown on 
a photograph of the Crab nebula with the same exposure, and 
not nearly so much as, thougha little brighter than, a photograph 
of the Dumb-bell nebula taken a few days after. A greatnumber 
of stars are to be seen. A defect in the apparatus then being 
used for the first time has caused a tilt of the plate and:a conse- 
