Recent Literature. 
2 43 
negligence, or ignorance were discovered in our habitual use of names. 
It was therefore determined to submit the current catalogue of North 
American birds to a rigid examination, with reference to the spelling, 
pronunciation, and derivation of every name — in short, to revise the list 
from a philological as well as an ornithological standpoint.” 
“The purpose of the present ‘Check List’ is thus distinctly seen to be 
two-fold : First, to present a complete list of the birds now known to 
inhabit North America, north of Mexico, and including Greenland, to 
classify them systematically, and to name them conformably with current 
rules of nomenclature; these being ornithological matters of science. 
Secondly, to take each word occurring in such technical usage, explain its 
derivation, significance, and application, spell it correctly, and indicate 
its pronunciation with the usual diacritical marks ; these being purely 
philological matters, affecting not the scientific status of any bird, but 
the classical questions involved in its name” (pp. 3, 4). 
The analysis of the two editions shows that of the 120 additions to the 
old list the large majority are bona fide species, and actual acquisitions 
to the North American list, being birds discovered since 1873 in Texas, 
Arizona, and Alaska, together with several long known to inhabit Green- 
land, which had never been formally included in the “North American” 
list at the time Dr. Coues’s first Check List was issued, though the Green- 
land Fauna, even then, was generally claimed and conceded to be North 
American. Beside these, the increment is represented by species or 
varieties named as new to science since 1873, by a few restored to the list, 
and by two ( Passer montanus and Coturnix dactylisonans ) imported and 
now naturalized species. 
The author states that the list includes the names of some twenty or 
thirty sub-species which “my conservatism would not have allowed me to 
describe as valid, and the validity of which I can scarcely endorse,” but 
which are retained because “I preferred, in preparing a ‘Check List’ for 
general purposes, rather to present the full number of names in current 
usage, and let them stand for what they may be worth, than to exercise 
any right of private judgment, or make any critical investigation of the 
merits of disputed cases.” In view of this declaration, however, we fail 
to understand why such names as Carjbodacus fiurfiureus californicus , 
Chondestes grammicus strigatus , Picus villosus leucomelas , Bubo virgini- 
anus subarcticus, Bubo virginianus saturatus , and O reortyx ft i eta ftlumi- 
fera should -have been denied a place. Nor can we approve the exclusion 
of certain Audubonian species “not since identified,” as well as some of 
Giraud’s, which there is no good reason to doubt were actually taken in 
Texas. “A few Cape St. Lucas birds have been so long in the ‘North 
American’ list that it is not thought worth while to displace them”; but 
does not this consideration apply with equal force to many of the Mexican 
species which are excluded ? Our present southern boundary is a political, 
not a natural one, but this is all the more reason why it should be rigidly 
adhered to if followed at all. As Dr. Coues remarks, however, it would be 
far more satisfactory, from a scientific standpoint, to ignore the present 
