560 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XVIII, 
putkaicus Reichenow, Journ. Ornith. Leipzig, 61, 1913, p. 557: 
N. E. am). The compilation of asynonomy is both tedious 
and dull: it is unlikely that exhaustive research of the kind 
will be undertaken unless there is strong reason to do so and 
the fact that no synonomy must be shewn inevitably, we fear, 
makes for superficiality. 
e reason given for the absence of lists of references is 
that it has been possible to devote the space they would have 
occupied to additional field-notes—in effect, notes on nidi- 
fication. In a work with the claims and purposes of the 
present we could well have spared the latter for the former : 
and the paragraphs on nidification might have been issued in 
a small and inexpensive companion volume. e result is 
that the ornithologist who is not ready to accept without 
question Mr. Baker’s treatment of Indian birds has to turn to 
a9 
dixerunt. 
_ We feel that, failing a record of all literature dealing with 
a bird from the “Indian” point of view, one or two alterna- 
described in the belief that they were new and distinct. 
It seems advisable to point out some of the errors that 
have been perpetrated before they become accepted. We have 
confined ourselves to a scrutiny—and that somewhat hurried— 
of such species, Malaysian and eastern Indo-Chinese, as we are 
specially interested in : others, more concerned with them than 
ky‘ learning names which with few exceptions, will be per- 
manent’ (p. 3): a little help in this good cause will, however, 
be found below, where also will be found substantiation for — 
our statements. 
While these remarks partake of that form of criticism 
