172 
Recent Literature. 
half, we feel assured the sacrifice of quantity to quality would generally be 
regarded as for the better. 
In his classification Mr. Maynard has departed in many particulars from 
beaten paths, the basis for most of his changes being anatomical. That 
he has labored diligently in this field of study is apparent, but we cannot 
but feel that he has moved somewhat in the dark respecting what other 
workers have done. It not infrequently appears, too, as though his desire for 
originality were, in a great measure, responsible for the positions taken, and 
that in striving for this he often fails critically to examine all the considera- 
tions involved. This is shown in his liability to overestimate the relative 
value of osteological over external characters, he often, indeed, appearing 
to ignore the latter entirely. As an instance the genus Siurus is placed, as 
has been done before, next the typical Thrushes, mainly, as appears, because 
of sternal similarities, although the author states that he can find “ but 
two constant characters by which Siurus can be distinguished from Turdus, 
viz. the universally smaller size and the more conical and longer bill in 
proportion to the size of the bird.” He thus apparently ignores or over- 
looks the fact of the possession by the Siuri of only nine primaries. What- 
ever may be thought of the proper position of the genus this fact would 
appear to be sufficient to exclude it from among the ten-primaried birds. 
The extreme subdivision of the Owls appears to rest chiefly upon osteo- 
logical features. No fewer than five families are recognized ! Bubo and 
Nyctea, we notice, are placed in different families, although some authors 
experience difficulty in distinguishing them generically. The order 
Falconi (sic) is similarly subdivided. The use of general terms in the 
anatomical descriptions, instead of positive or even relative measurements, 
is reprehensible. Thus, “ sternum high,” or “coracoids short,” fails to 
convey any meaning to the ordinary student, and would prove too indefi- 
nite even to the skilled anatomist. In anatomy, if anywhere, the strictest 
accuracy is a prime essential, and without it words are meaningless. 
In the Preface the author calls attention to a somewhat novel principle, 
which he puts into practice later; viz. that when an author raises a variety 
to specific rank he may discard the original describer’s name and apply a 
new one. We presume that the converse treatment would be held to give 
the same right, and that the degradation of a species to varietal rank 
also involves the right of re-naming. Either or both principles once 
admitted would result in a signal change of our nomenclature. Individual 
opinion must always have largely to do with the exact rank of forms, 
whether as species or varieties. But if each author is at liberty to re- 
name every bird concerning whose status he chooses to differ from other 
authorities, and about which he may himself find it necessary to reverse his 
judgment as new facts are brought to light, we may once and for all 
abandon the idea of any stability to our nomenclature. But we have no 
fear that such a mischievous principle will find favor, since most ornithol- 
ogists are agreed that the confusion is bad enough already. The case of 
