114 Novit ates Zoolooicae XXIII. 1916. 



Latham, Gen. Synops. B., Snppl. i. p. 291 (1787) is based on the " Pygmy Curlew," 

 Gen. Synops. B. i. p. 127, and is undoubtedly the Curlew Sandpiper. 



The oldest name of the Broad-billed Sandpiper is Pontoppidan's Scolopax 

 falcinellus, Danske Atlas, p. 623, 1763 (and pi. xxvi. 4). The description is very 

 short, but may be considered as diagnostic ; moreover, the species was described 

 in detail under the same name in 1764 by Briinnich. We must therefore call 

 the species Limicola falcinellus. In Reichenow's Vög. Afr. i. p. 231, the name 

 Nurnenius pusillus appears also wrongly under " Tringa subarquata." 1 '' 



12. Under " Totanus fuscus" (now Tringa erythropus), p. 409, is quoted as 

 a synonym, " Scolopax atra Sander, Naturf. xiii. p. 193 (1779)." Sander, however, 

 gave no name to the bird, but only describes the black plumage. Reichenow, 

 p. 219, also quotes Scolopax atra Sauder. 



13. Under " Totanus calidris" (now Tringa totanus), p. 417, is quoted Totanus 

 meridionalis, Brehm, Naumannia 1855, p. 292 ; the name is there a nomeu nudum, 

 while in Vogelfang, p. 312, 1855, a regular description is given ; the "Vogelfang" 

 therefore should be quoted instead of " Naumannia 1855," or both. 



14. On pp. 424 and 484 is quoted: " Limosa horsfieldii Sykes, P.Z.S. 1832, 

 p. 163," as synonymous with "Totanus stagnatilis" and "Glottis nebularius.'" 

 Both cannot, of course, be correct The description shows clearly that the bird is 

 the former, Totanus (now Tringa) stagnatilis, moreover the type is in the British 

 Museum, and mentioned by Sharpe on p. 426. The quotation is somewhat loose, 

 and should be " Proc. Committee Zool. Soc. London, Part II. p. 163, 1833." 



15. Under " Glottis nebularius'''' is correctly quoted Scolopax glottis Latham, 

 1787, but it must be added " nee Linnaeus ! " On p. 484 is quoted Totanus griseus, 

 Bechstein, Gem. Naturg. Deutschl. iv. p. 249, but the page is 231 ; the same mishap 

 has occurred to Reichenow, Vög. Afr. i. p. 217. 



16. On p. 461, under " Tringoides hypoleucus" is quoted as a synonym: 

 " Actitis stagnalis (nee Gray), Brehm, Vög. Deutschl. p. 649"; it should, however, 

 read : Actitis stagnatilis (nee Bechstein), Brehm, Handb. Naturg. Vög. Deutschl. 

 p. 649. 



17. Under Nurnenius borealis are at least two misprints. On p. 369 the page 

 where Nurnenius brevirostris Licht, is described is 75, not 72. On p. 370, the 

 volume in which N. microrhynchus Philippi & Landbeck is described should be 

 1866, i. and not 1868. 



18. Under Scolopax rusticola is quoted (p. 674): Rusticola vulgaris Vieillot, 

 Nouv. Diet., etc., p. 673, but the page is 348. 



19. Under "P/ialaropus hyperboreus" is quoted (p. 701): Phalaropus lobipes 

 Keys. & Bias., but these authors called the bird Lobipes cinereus ! — Phal. moluccensis 

 Temm. appears on p. 59 and not p. 69 ! 



20. Misprints and errors occur in every book in the world. Even from Mathews' 

 B. of Australia they are by no means absent, though very rare. For example, 

 under Nurnenius cyanopus I noticed that the name N. rostratus is quoted as appearing 

 in Ann. j' Mag. Nat. Hist, ix., while it is vol. xi. iu which it is found. Nor is it 

 there given as a " substitute name," but quoted as a MS. name of Latham for 

 N. cyanopus. 



Sapienti sat ! If all these errors occur in a portion of the paifearctic Waders 

 alone, how many may there be in the tropical species ? 



