REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 41 
to keep us alive to the requirements of the case. While we per- 
sonally have not the particular information required for nicety of 
criticism in such an instance as the present, we may, nevertheless, 
indicate the general features of the paper. The author has limited 
his field to ‘ Europe,” politically speaking, as is customary indeed, 
but as is not, in our judgment, either necessary or desirable. As 
naturalists, we should consider the distribution of our objects of 
study with reference rather to natural faunal areas, at least when 
the species of more than a single locality are to be collated. We 
trust that the compiler of the next “ European” catalogue will 
take this into consideration. Prof. Dubois catalogues five hun- 
dred and seventy-five species in gross, under two hundred and 
fifty-three genera of fifty families, this enumeration being exclusive 
of numerous “ varieties,” but inclusive of the “ stragglers” (for- 
tuito occurrentes). There are, we find, about one hundred and 
sixty-five of the latter, leaving four hundred and ten species net. 
Comparing this with a rather recent list * of very excellent author- 
ity, the discrepancy is notably slight, Prof. Blasius giving four 
hundred and twenty regular inhabitants, one hundred and three 
casuals and fifty-five varieties. The totals of the two lists (five 
hundred and seventy-five and five hundred and seventy-eight) are 
surprisingly close, but it should be remembered that this apparent 
agreement is largely brought about by accidental counterbalancing 
of numerous individual discrepancies; and furthermore, if Dr. 
Dubois had, like Prof. Blasius, numbered the geographical and other 
varieties he admits, the result would have been very different. On 
the whole, we cannot consider that European ornithologists have 
as yet reached unanimity in the cases of more than two-thirds of the 
species that occur within their limits. Whether the present list is 
more or less reliable than some of its predecessors, we must leave 
to the judgment of those who are better informed than ourselves ; 
but there is no doubt of its very general acceptability. 
Much may be said in general terms, in favor of the classifica- ee 
tion of this brochure, although we cannot endorse i throughout. : 
We protest, as other writers have, against the ‘ one 
association which places swallows alongside swifts isk -goatsuck- : 
ers ; we see no grounds for the uniting of American Tireonide with- 
the old world a heroes seam nor the propriety of — the nine- 
tBlasius; Newton’s ed. of 1862. 
» 
