394 THE ZOOLOGIST. 



The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, 

 Birds. Vol. III. By W. T. Blanford, F.R.S. 8vo, pp. 

 i — xiv, 1 — 450. London: Taylor & Francis. 1895. 



The progress of this excellent undertaking, under the editor- 

 ship of Dr. Blanford, must, from its very nature, be necessarily 

 slow, in consequence of the enormous amount of material avail- 

 able, and the extent of the collections to be worked out. We 

 have from time to time advised our readers of the appearance of 

 different volumes in the series prepared by different specialists ; * 

 and we have now to direct attention to the third volume on the 

 * Birds ' of India, which has just made its appearance. The first 

 two volumes of this section were prepared by Mr. Eugene Oates, 

 who would have completed his task had he not been obliged to 

 return to his appointment in India, as explained in the Preface 

 to his second volume. The work of completion, therefore, has 

 been now undertaken by the Editor, who announces that although 

 the original design was to finish the ' Birds' in three volumes, it 

 has been decided that a fourth will be necessary, and of this he 

 states that a considerable portion is already written. 



The species of which descriptions appear in the present volume 

 are the Picarian or non-Passerine perching birds, the Parrots, 

 and the nocturnal and diurnal Birds of Prey. Thus the first 

 three volumes of this work correspond to the first two of Jerdon's, 

 and contain the same families of birds, although differently 

 arranged. 



As to classification, " the system adopted is in the main 

 identical with those of Sharpe and Gadow, and differs in no 

 important point from the classification of Sclater and Newton." 

 The chief difference between the plan here followed and those 

 proposed by the ornithologists named is that no attempt has 

 been made in the present work to arrange in larger categories 

 the groups here termed Orders. This is due to the circumstance 

 that there is a much wider general agreement as to the distinct- 

 ness of the smaller ordinal or subordinal groups than as to their 

 relations to each other. Although the synonymy seems well 

 worked out, we regret to see here and there, as regards nomen- 

 clature, a want of conformity with the views of the above-named 



* See » Zoologist,' 1888, p. 395 (Mammals) ; 1889, p. 467 (Fishes) ; 1890, 

 p. 150 (Birds). 



