Recent Ornithological Publications. 199 
Spanish bird is quite a different species from the true Pica cyanea 
of Siberia. It was first brought to the notice of ornithologists, 
we believe, by Capt. Cook (afterwards Widdrington), the author 
of ‘ Sketches in Spain/ In that work (vol. ii. p. 258), it will 
be found alluded to as Pica cyanea . But some of his specimens 
having been placed in the hands of the late Prince Bonaparte, 
that acute observer instantly recognized their distinctness, and, 
on exhibiting them at the meeting of the British Association 
held at Birmingham in 1849, proposed to call the Spanish bird 
Pica cooki (see Report Brit. Assoc. 1849, p. 75). In the Prince’s 
article on the Garruline Birds, in the Proc. Zool. Soc. for 1850, 
and in his ‘Conspectus' (p.382), the differences between the two 
species are clearly pointed out. They are very noticeable on 
comparison. Mr. Bree, though he figures an egg supposed to 
be of this bird, gives no details as to its nidification, or indeed 
as to its habits. He has apparently quite overlooked the inter¬ 
esting article of Baron R. Konig-Warthausen on this subject in 
the fourth volume of ‘ Naumannia'*, and the notice of its eggs 
given in Cabanis' ‘Journal fur Ornithologie,' 1856, p. 32. We 
may also remark, that Garrulus krynickii of the Caucasus, G. me- 
lanocephalus of Syria, and G. cervicalis of Algeria are now 
generally considered as distinct species. The striking differences 
between the two latter are well pointed out by Mr. Tristram 
(who has himself observed both in a state of nature) in our last 
Numberf. The Caucasian bird alone has some claims to be 
considered European. 
The 4th and concluding part of the ‘ Illustrated Proceedings 
of the Zoological Society' for 1858 is not yet out; but we believe 
it will appear very shortly. 
The ‘Annals of Natural History' for February contain two 
articles relating to our branch of zoology. We cannot believe 
that Mr. Strickland's supposed new British Goose {Anser palu- 
dosus !) has remained so long unnamed. Is it Naumann's Anser 
arvensis , as distinguished from A. segetum in ‘Naumannia' (iii. 
p. 5, pi. 4), or is it the true A. segetum ? The second paper, 
Mr. Wallace’s “ Correction of an important error affecting the 
classification of the Psittacidse" (p. 147), affords valuable ad- 
* See ‘Naumannia,’ 1854, p. 30. f See antea, p. 32. 
P 2 
