102 
Recent Literature. 
[April 
forms, on which more later when we come to consider our author’s pecul- 
iar method of using “the trinomial name.” 
On the subject of nomenclature Mr. Seebohm has a page or two of per- 
tinent remarks which we would gladly quote in full did space permit. In 
respect to his treatment of specific and subspecific forms, he believes that 
he “may be considered an ornithological revolutionist by those who have 
not yet accepted the modern theories of evolution,” but at the same time 
claims to have “adopted conservative principles” upon questions of no- 
menclature. “The modern attempt,” he says, “to carry out the law of 
priority regardless of consequences, which has introduced so many un- 
known names into our nomenclature to the detriment of the. study of 
ornithology, has generally been in direct violation of the equally important 
law of clear definition, which, if it were in its turn carried out in the same 
unrelenting manner, would further complicate our nomenclature to a per- 
haps still greater degree. ... It appears to me to be a great mistake to 
rake up old and little-used names, and to adopt them because the balance 
of collateral evidence that they were intended by their authors to be ap- 
plied to certain species is in their favour. I venture to hope that future 
ornithologists will retain the old familiar names, even if the law of prior- 
ity has to be modified to countenance their retention. I have accordingly 
adopted the law of priority with the following modifications — that names 
which have been extensively misapplied must be rejected, and names 
otherwise unobjectionable must be retained, if a majority of ornithological 
writers have used them, even though they may not be the oldest. . . . Like 
many other conservative practices, this may not be very logical, but I take 
it to be an eminently practical solution of the difficulties that surround 
ornithological nomenclature ” (p. xi). These sentiments will doubtless 
meet with hearty approval on this side of the water from the many who 
lament the violent upheaval that has, during the last few years, so deeply 
affected the, stability of many long-familiar names in North American or- 
nithology. 
Passing now to the body of the work, it may be said in general to be 
very satisfactorily done. It is modeled on the plan of the previous volumes 
of the series ; there being no formal diagnoses of either the genera or the 
higher groups, and the distinctive points of specific dissimilarity are gen- 
erally presented only in the artificial “keys” to the species. Sexual and 
other phases of plumage are described in detail, followed by a short para- 
graph on the geographical distribution of the forms in question, with 
special reference also to the breeding and winter range. The bibliograph- 
ical citations are reasonably full, and, -as we are pleased to see, the date of 
publication of each work cited is given, as is not the case in most of the 
other volumes of this invaluable series. 
In conclusion we must notice the various ways in which admittedly sub- 
specific forms are treated in respect to nomenclature, and in so doing can 
but express regret and disappointment, considering the position on the 
matter of subspecies the author takes in his introductory remarks (in part 
quoted above), at his, as it seems to us, illogical mode of designating such 
