184 
Recent Literature. 
Herodiones of authors, with the addition of the': Flamingoes ( Phcenicopteri - 
dee). He discusses at some length the affinities of this group, but we fail 
to he convinced of the propriety of its removal from the Anserine series, 
where of late it has been pretty generally placed, to its present associa- 
tion. In his introductory remarks Dr. Reichenow discusses the object of 
classification, the questions of “ subspecies ” and “ varieties,” and rules of 
nomenclature. He adopts the tenth edition (1758) of the “ Systema Na- 
turae ” as the starting-point of binomial nomenclature in zoology, and ac- 
cepts, very properly, no specific names of an earlier date, while the first 
edition (1735) of the same work is taken as the earliest point of departure 
for generic nomenclature. He also throws over all “ barbarous ” names, 
whether specific or generic, all names of erroneous signification, and all 
classical names improperly constructed. Under these restrictions many 
long-established and familiar designations fall, to be replaced by the next 
(in Dr. Reichenow’s view) unobjectionable name. In default of any such 
our author proceeds to supply the deficiency. In this way, to cite a few 
examples, Platalea ajaja becomes P. rosea ; Ciconia maguari becomes G. 
dicrura , Reichenow ; Ardea herodias becomes A. lessoni , etc. ; the generic 
name (subgeneric in Reichenow’s system) Gi'osarchius is replaced by Butio, 
Reichenow, Zebrilus by Microcnus, Reichenow, Ag amici by Doryphorus , 
Reichenow (a name essentially preoccupied in entomology by Eoryphora), 
Garzetta and Egretta by Erodius, etc., the earlier names being in each case 
supplanted because “ barbarous.” The specific names major , fuscus, purpu- 
reus , etc., when erroneous in signification, are replaced by later ones. 
These are innovations which we think stand small chance of general ac- 
ceptation, and admit of no adequate defence, however advisable it may be 
to discard the practice of adding such names in future. 
After discussing at some length the characters and classification of the 
order “ Gressores ,” the author passes to a synopsis of the group, giving 
briefly the characters of the families, genera, and subgenera, short Latin 
diagnoses of the species, and the more important synonyms. Under the 
head of each family are general remarks upon the number of species, their 
distribution and habits. The whole number of species recognized is one 
hundred and twenty-three, with, in addition, quite a number of “ sub- 
species” and “varieties.” These are arranged in six families (“ Ibidce” 
twenty-seven species ; Ciconiidce , nineteen species ; Phcenicopteridce, five 
species ; Scopidce and Balcenicipidce, each one species ; Ardeidce , sixty- 
seven species), fourteen genera, and twenty-two subgenera. 
In respect to the matter of genera, Dr. Reichenow displays extreme con- 
servatism, his genera having in most instances a value most writers regard 
as supergeneric. His subgenera eyen are more comprehensive than are 
the genera of the ultra-divisionists, but in the main are such groups as 
we should consider as properly constituted genera. The contrast in 
respect to genera is rarely greater, among contemporary writers working 
in the same field, than is that presented by Dr. Reichenow on the one 
