The Emu. 
29 
should be in the hands of every ornithologist and in every public 
library. Gould's work will always be the standard authority, 
but Mr. North's possesses the advantage that our fuller know- 
ledge of native birds and their ways is embodied in it. 
The concisely written descriptions of the adult birds (male 
and female) are valuable aids for the identification of species ; 
those of the eggs are hardly so succinct, and are rather over- 
elaborated as to detail. A scientific work, such as a museum 
catalogue, should doubtless, to be complete, record all known 
variations of form and colouration ; but in this case would it not 
have been more advantageous and less confusing for the ordinary 
student (and the majority of readers will belong to this class) if the 
variations had been more clearly differentiated from the '" type?" 
The remainder of the book is admirably written, and must give 
pleasure and enjoyment to all who peruse it, and the whole work 
is such as is only begotten by the experience of a lifetime, or 
penned by one whose heart is in his task. The study and 
research that have gone to the making of it are revealed in the 
chapters on the perplexing species of the genus Strepera, of 
which Mr. North's handling is both good and lucid. It is indeed 
interesting to learn that he has identified S. fidiginosa from as 
far north as Central Queensland ; but is he justified in omitting 
South Australia from the geographical range of S. cuneicaudata 
and vS. gj'aculina ? 
Whilst no " errors of commission " are noticeable in this first 
part of Mr. North's work, which deals with the families Coi'vidce 
and ParadiseidcE, some of his omissions are likely to discount 
the high standard of his writings. Acknowledgment, or reference 
to prior work, is an " unwritten " law both in science and in 
literature ; yet, whilst the author frankly acknowledges notes and 
specimens received from various correspondents, and refers to 
older, even ancient, authorities, he entirely ignores the work of 
contemporaneous authors on Australian oology. As he holds a 
high position in our ornithological world, and represents his 
branch in the premier natural history institution in the Common- 
wealth, one would hardly expect him to thus lay himself open 
to adverse criticism. He could afford to be generous. One 
example of this shortcoming may be cited. He refers with 
pardonable pride to his having first described the eggs from 
New Guinea of the rare genus PJionygania, but the first descrip- 
tions and historical findings of the eggs of three species of 
Australian Rifle Birds* mentioned by other authors are quite 
ignored. Compared with Phonygauia, these birds are equally 
interesting, rare, and beautiful. Ignoring such items as these 
is all the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that the 
* Ptilorhis paradisea — Campbell — Vict. Nat., vol. xiii. , p. 145, with plate 
(1897). P. victor i(B—<Z-3scv^ht\\ — Vict. Nat., vol. viii., p. 134 (1892); Le Souef— 
Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., vol. v., fig. (1892).- P. alherti — Le Souef — Ibis, p. 394 
(1897). 
