I02 Recent Literature. [April 



forms, on which more later when we come to consider our author's pecul- 

 iar method of using "the trinomial name." 



On the subject of nomenclature Mr. Seebohm has a page or two of per- 

 tinent remarks which we would gladly quote in full did space permit. In 

 respect to his treatment of specific and subspecific forms, he believes that 

 he "may be considered an ornithological revolutionist by those who have 

 not yet accepted the modern theories of evolution," but at the same time 

 claims to have "adopted conservative principles" upon questions of no- 

 menclature. "The modern attempt." he says, "to carry out the law of 

 priorit}'' regardless of consequences, which has introduced so many un- 

 known names into our nomenclature to the detriment of the study of 

 ornithology, has generally been in direct violation of the equally important 

 law of clear definition, which, if it were in its turn carried out in the same 

 unrelenting manner, would further complicate our nomenclature to a per- 

 haps still greater degree. ... It appears to me to be a great mistake to 

 rake up old and little-used names, and to adopt them because the balance 

 of collateral evidence that they were intended by their authors to be ap- 

 plied to certain species is in their favour. I venture to hope that future 

 ornithologists will retain the old familiar names, even if the law of prior- 

 ity has to be modified to countenance their retention. I have accordingly 

 adopted the law of priority with the following modifications — that names 

 which have been extensively misapplied must be rejected, and names 

 otherwise unobjectionable must be retained, if a majority of ornithological 

 writers have used them, even though they may not be the oldest. . . . Like 

 many other coriservative practices, this may not be very logical, but I take 

 it to be an eminently practical solution of the difficulties that surround 

 ornithological nomenclature " (p. xi). These sentiments will doubtless 

 meet with hearty approval on this side of the water from the many who 

 lament the violent upheaval that has, during the last few years, so deeply 

 affected the stability of many long-familiar names in North American or- 

 nithology. 



Passing now to the body of the work, it may be said in general to be 

 very satisfactorily done. It is modeled on the plan of the previous volumes 

 of the series; there being no formal diagnoses of either the genera or the 

 higher groups, and the distinctive points of specific dissimilarity are gen- 

 erally presented only in the artificial "keys" to the species. Sexual and 

 other phases of plumage are described in detail, followed by a short para- 

 graph on the geographical distribution of the forms in question, with 

 special reference also to the breeding and winter range. The bibliograph- 

 ical citations are reasonably full, and, as we are pleased to see, the date of 

 publication of each work cited is given, as is not the case in most of the 

 other volumes of this invaluable series. 



In conclusion we must notice the various ways in which admittedly -sub- 

 specific forms are treated in respect to nomenclature, and in so doing can 

 but express regret and disappointment, considering the position on the 

 matter of subspecies the author takes in his introductory remarks (in part 

 quoted above), at his, as it seems to us, illogical mode of designating such 



