Reeent Ornithological Publications, 205 
deny. In the first place, every variation of form, however 
minute, whether considered specific or not, is worthy of record; 
and, secondly, perfect specific identity should not be predicated 
of any two sets of forms coming from widely distant regions 
without actual comparison of examples. When differences are 
often so minute and yet so constant, it is not sufficient to draw 
conclusions as to specific identity from descriptions and figures, 
however excellent. Now against this last rule it appears to us 
that Dr. v. Schrenck, no doubt owing mainly to the want of 
opportunity—-certainly not from the wish to escape work—has 
in many instances offended; and we shall proceed to notice a few 
of them, to some of which our attention has been particularly 
directed by Dr. Hartlaub. 
Acanthylis caudacuta (p. 250) is considered identical with 
the Australian bird. It may be so; but such a point can 
only be considered established after examination of a large series 
of examples from each locality. Had the Amoorian bird been 
united with the Himalayan form, Acanthylis nudipes (Hirundo 
nudipes, Hodgs.; Cypselus leuconotus, Delessert), we should 
hardly have made the same objection. But we cannot allow 
that the same u species ” of bird can exist in two widely sepa¬ 
rated localities without existing also in the intermediate space, 
and we have never heard that this Acanthylis has been met with 
in the Indian peninsula, Java, Sumatra, Borneo, or New Guinea. 
Dr. v. Schrencfs suggestion that the bird regularly migrates 
from the Amoor to New South Wales cannot surely be serious*. 
Alcedo ispida, var. bengalensis (p. 265). This “local variety 
of our Kingfisher,” as Dr. v. Schrenck prefers to call it, is a 
much smaller bird than A, ispida , but has the beak remark¬ 
ably longer. In this case, however, an elaborate discussion is 
* The existence of this Swift in N.E. Asia will perhaps explain the 
occurrence of the so-called “ Australian Spine-tailed Swift ” in the British 
Islands. We have little doubt that it was a wanderer from Eastern Asia 
that was recorded under this name (Zoologist, 1846, p. 1492) as having 
been captured in this country, if the statements there given are to be 
relied upon. Such an occurrence would not be more unlikely than that of 
Anthus richardi , Turtur gelastes, Phylloscopus superciliosus seu reguloides, 
and other accidental visitors to Western Europe from the far East. 
