Recent Ornithological Publications. 109 
Gulls of North America,” which Mr. Coues has prepared for 
publication in a Government Report. We are glad to hear that 
this monograph will be illustrated by figures of the bills of all 
the species, and coloured drawings of the primary quills, show¬ 
ing the outline and extent of their markings; for such illustra¬ 
tions cannot fail to be of the greatest assistance towards the 
correct discrimination of the species of this difficult group. Mr. 
Coues seems to us in some cases to push rather to an extreme 
the separation of the representatives of the same specific types 
in the northern portions of the two hemispheres. The question 
is, in all such cases, Is it possible in a large series of specimens 
to separate those of the one region from those of the other, with¬ 
out a previous knowledge of the localities ? The doctrine of the 
difference of the species of distinct zoological regions has now 
been carried to such an extent, that it is too frequently assumed 
that species are different because they ought to be different, and 
because previous w r riters, who perhaps have only taken the 
trouble to compare single specimens from each locality, have 
considered them different, and assigned different names to them. 
But it seems manifest that no representative species ought to be 
recognized unless it can be clearly shown that it presents differ¬ 
ences (however minute these may be) which render it invariably 
recognizable without a previous knowledge of its origin. 
We will defer further remarks on Mr. Coues's arrangement of 
the Larince until the more perfect work is produced, and con¬ 
tent ourselves for the present by stating that the species re¬ 
cognized as North American amount to no less than twenty-five 
in number, of which sixteen belong to the more typical section 
containing the genus Larus and its allies, and nine to the 
Xemine or hooded group, in which the head usually grows black 
in the breeding-season. 
From Mr. D. G. Elliott's <{ Remarks on the species composing 
the genus Pedicecetes *, Baird,” given in a subsequent page 
(p. 482) of the c Proceedings/ it would seem that the supposed 
* This name is commonly written Pedioccetes. But if, as we presume, 
the derivation is ntbiov, campus, and ot/cr/r?)y, habitans, it ought to be spelt 
Pediacetes. 
