NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS. 471 



This appears to us illogical ; for, surely, at the head of the 

 Singing-birds should be placed those which "excel in singing," 

 unless Dr. Sharpe would begin at the other end of the scale in 

 the order of merit, and commence with those species which do 

 not sing at all, and end with the Thrushes, which sing 

 splendidly. But this he does not do; for we find the Thrushes 

 interpolated (pp. 241 — 303) between the Sylviidce and the Accentor- 

 idee, a "family" which, with all due deference, we consider un- 

 necessary. The position we have always taken up is that, "flight" 

 being the chief characteristic of birds as distinguished from every 

 other class of vertebrate animals, we should place at the head of 

 any scheme of classification those forms in which " flight " is most 

 highly developed and perfected, namely, the birds of prey, which 

 are able to overtake and capture any other species when brought 

 into competition with it on the wing. Thus the highest type of 

 bird, from our point of view, is to be found amongst the long- 

 winged Falcons, which have the additional merit of possessing 

 the highest degree of intelligence amongst birds. 



As to nomenclature, we are perfectly aghast at the changes 

 proposed by Dr. Sharpe. To take the genus Corvus, for example, 

 he will only allow it to include (so far as Great Britain is 

 concerned) a single species, corax. The Eook he would call 

 Tryphanocorax frugilegus, the Crow Cor one corone, the Jackdaw 

 Colceus monedula, and so forth. This, as it seems to us, is 

 carrying differentiation much too far, and needlessly so ; for 

 surely all these birds have sufficient points of resemblance to 

 justify their being grouped together, for all practical purposes, 

 in one and the same genus. 



This brings us to another point. We utterly dissent from the 

 proposal to give the typical species of a genus the same name as 

 that of the genus, as Dr. Sharpe has done in the case of Corone 

 corone, Pica pica, Graculus graculus, Cannabina cannabina, and 

 a host of others. The adoption of such a course is to destroy 

 the whole value of the binomial system, and, as it seems to us, is 

 indefensible. We are told that it is justified by Linnaeus himself, 

 who has described the Common Mackerel under the name of 

 Scomber scomber. But if this be the only justification that can 

 be pleaded, it may be at once dismissed by a very simple ex- 

 planation. What Linnaeus wrote and intended to have printed in 

 this case was Scomber scombrus. This is proved by his own 



