'^^3]- Recent Literature. ' lO'l 



forms. On page 14, in speaking of Sylvia orpketts and Sylvia jerdoni, 

 after referring to the points of diiference between the two, and the occur- 

 rence of intermediate examples, he saj^s : "We must therefore admit that 

 the diiference between the two forms is only a subspecific one, being com- 

 pletely bridged over bj examples from intermediate localities." The two 

 forms ai-e then described, and are numbered and stand in the work itself 

 and in the "systematic index" as species in regular standing, the text 

 alone — not the nomenclatui-e or the numeration emploj^ed — showing that 

 they are viewed otherwise. They stand "5, Sylvia orfheus" \ "6. Sylvia 

 jerdoni" followed by tables of references and detailed descriptions in the- 

 same manner as Species of unquestioned standing. Mr. Sharpe's method 

 of treating subspecies is far more reasonable, they being formally recog- 

 nized as such in hia nomenclature, by which method the two forms would 

 stand as follows : "5. Sylvia or fheus-" "subspecies a ^v^ti'/rtyeri^ow/" in the 

 body of the work and as "5. Sylvia orpheus" and ''o. ferdoni" in the system- 

 atic index. To take, another example from the many scattered through the 

 volume, at page 16 we have, as a subheading ''Sylvia curruca, Sylvia affi- 

 nis, and Sylvia althea" followed by a paragi-aph from which we quote the 

 following: "This is an excellent example of a species in the process of 

 breaking up into three species. ... I prefer to treat them as subspecies, 

 adopting the provisional hypothesis that the intermediate forms are the 

 result of the interbreeding of the different races." Each subspecies is then 

 (very properly) treated separately ,_ but with the status, to all appearances, 

 of accepted species, although in the text they are spoken of respectively 

 as the "European form," the "Siberian form," and the "Himalayan form" 

 of the Lesser Whitethroat. To specify another example, the Rock Thrush 

 (p. 316) is said to have "two extreme forms, between which every possible 

 intermediate form occurs"; yet these two forms stand, so far as regards 

 nomenclature and numeration, on the same footing as fully admitted 

 species. In further illustration of this point we may cite the cases of the 

 Turdus "• pallassi" and Turdiis "■s-wainsoni" groups. The three forms 

 composing each appear to him "to be deserving of -subspecific rank," or 

 as " imperfectly segregated species," but each has nomenclaturallj^ the 

 same status in his book as the "fully segregated" species. The Mexican 

 and Central American intergrading forms of Turdus, even in some cases 

 where Salvin and Godman have united them as one species, are similarly 

 treated. This seems to be a " hard and tight" adhesion to the binomial 

 system little to be expected from one who goes so far as to admit and even 

 seemingly to advocate a better system. 



Toward the close of the volume, however, arc a few instances of a pe- 

 culiar or modified use of trinomial names, as at pages 379 and 380, where 

 we find ''Saxicola leucoinelcena-monticola" and Saxicola monticola-leuco- 

 nielcena" in addition to Saxicola leucomelcena and Saxicola inonticola, to 

 express the relationship of two forms intermediate between the two latter, 

 between which, however, he believes "a large enough series will show not 

 two intermediate forms only, but an infinite series." The intent of this 

 method of designation is explained in the passage from the introduction 



