# The Zoologist/3rd series, vol 1 (1877)/Issue 10/Notices of New Books

Published in The Zoologist, 3rd series, vol 1, issue 10, p. 458–464
NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.
The question of zoological classification would furnish study for a life-time, and the more we look into it the further we seem from a satisfactory solution. Nor is the difficulty much lessened by restricting ourselves to a particular class, Aves, and limiting our enquiry still further by dealing only with British birds. The subject of "affinities" is so intricate, and "nomenclature" has become so involved and perplexing, that he is a bold man who attempts to arrange the one and revise the other. And yet if no "system" has hitherto been proposed which has met with universal approbation on the part of ornithologists, it has not been for want of suggestions. We have before us half-a-dozen modern ​Classifications of Birds, all of which are worthy of the highest consideration, and are doubtless more or less familiar to our readers, but none of which seem to have met with anything like general acceptance, either from their want of sufficient simplicity and uniformity, or in consequence of their being based too exclusively upon hidden characters. To the latter category, it may be said, belong the classification proposed by Professor Huxley in 1867, which is based on the modifications of certain of the cranial bones, and the classification of Professor Garrod, published in 1874, based mainly on the arrangement of the muscles of the thigh.
Apart from the question of "basis," no two authorities seem agreed upon the question "where to begin." Mr. Pascoe, in his recently published 'Zoological Classification,' commences his classification of birds with the Woodpeckers, Picidæ, or more accurately speaking with the order Pici. Mr. Sclater prefers to begin with the order Passeres, and heads his 'List of Birds in the Gardens of the Zoological Society' with the Thrushes. Professor Newton, adopting the time-honoured system of Linnaeus, deals first with the order Accipitres, and in his edition of 'Yarrell's British Birds' commences, as Yarrell did, with the Vultures.
Mr. Wharton, in the 'List' before us, while agreeing with Mr. Sclater in giving priority to the order Passeres, or, as he would term it, Oscines, prefers the Nightingale to the Thrush, and accordingly commences with the former species. When it is stated that he begins with the Nightingale and ends with the Hooded Merganser, some idea may be formed of the changes which he advocates in the system hitherto generally adopted by British ornithologists. But in this matter, we are aware, Mr. Wharton will disclaim responsibility, since his genera are arranged, as his title-page informs us, "according to Sundevall's method."
Any criticism, therefore, as regards the arrangement would have to be directed against the late Swedish Professor, and not against the author of the present 'List.'
Under these circumstances our remarks will be confined to Mr. Wharton's revision of the nomenclature, although we may note en passant a few of the more noticeable changes of position in the system to which some species have been subjected. The Dartford Warbler is removed from its proximity to the Whitethroat group of Warblers, to which we consider it is very closely allied, and ​finds a place between the Dipper and the Wren! This is, of course, unavoidable in employing Sundevall's method, because, according to his classification, on each side of Melizophilus, and between Cinclus and Troglodytes, numerous genera come in which have no representatives in the British List. The result, how'ever, must seem very unnatural to anyone not acquainted with Sundevall's work.
Again, the Bearded Titmouse is removed from its accustomed proximity to members of the genus Parus, and is placed, not—as might be supposed—near Emberiza, but between Anthus and Accentor, a position as unnatural as that assigned to Melizophilus. Under these circumstances, why the English name "Titmouse" should be retained we are at a loss to know, since if it is not a Parus it is inconsistent to call it a Titmouse. The less objectionable name "Reedling" might be substituted.
To find the Larks separated from the Buntings by such widely different genera as those which include the Crows, Creepers and Swallows, is equally surprising; and to discover the Pigeons in the same order as the Woodpeckers, from which they differ so remarkably both in structure and habits, is no less startling. But for the assignment of these and other positions to which exception might be taken, Mr. Wharton, as we have said, is not responsible. He has taken Professor Sundevall's grouping of the entire class Aves as he has found it, and, arranging the British species in accordance therewith, has only taken upon himself the task of revising the nomenclature.
It must not be supposed, however, that we intend for one moment to disparage the classification of Professor Sundevall, for although we do not agree in all the details, yet, based as it is upon a careful and particular examination and comparison of the external and internal characters of birds, it is in our humble opinion by far the soundest system of any yet propounded. We would merely observe that, in applying it to include only those species which are regarded as British, without at the same time showing, where necessary, the absence of families and genera which form connecting links, is to do, as it were, an injustice to a system intended to apply to the entire class Aves, and not to the birds of any particular country.
In dealing with the nomenclature it is evident that Mr. Wharton has been guided, and very properly so, by the Rules for Zoological ​Nomenclature proposed by the British Association Committee, and, so far as we have had leisure to follow him, he would seem to have arrived at very correct results. We differ from him, however, at starting, on one or two rather material points. Speaking of the uses of the present 'List,' in his prefatory remarks, he says, "it shows at a glance what birds may rightly be considered British."
In this we do not agree. Mr. Wharton defines a British bird as one which has at least once, beyond a doubt, occurred in a truly wild state within the area of the British Isles, while we cannot but think that no true estimate of the British Avifauna can be arrived at unless the rare and purely accidental visitants to this country be carefully distinguished from the resident species and such as are periodical and regular immigrants. Hence we are unable to admit that such birds as Pycnonolus capensis, Agelæus phœniceus, Sturnella magna, Coccyzus americanus, and a host of others, which have no claim to be regarded even as palaearctic species, "may rightly be considered British."
Nor can we agree with Mr. Wharton that his 'List of British Birds' shows "to a certain extent their affinities." That it does so in a large number of instances we admit, but in many others a very erroneous impression is conveyed. Take, for example, Melizophilus undatus and Panurus biarmicus, above referred to. What are their affinities according to the present List? The first-named appears to be most nearly allied to Cinclus aquaiicus on the one side and to Troglodytes par cuius on the other; the second is placed between Anthus Richardi and Accentor collaris; and yet in neither case can it be said that there is the slightest degree of "affinity," in the proper acceptation of the term, with the genera to which each is contiguous. We are not amongst those who delight in the subdivision of genera, a process which, in our opinion, is now-a-days carried a great deal too far, and we cannot help thinking that Mr. Wharton's List would be more acceptable to British ornithologists had fewer subdivisions been adopted. To place eight species of River Warblers in five different genera, and to have eight different genera for as many species of Owl is a process of refining which seems to us quite unnecessary, while it tends to destroy the value of the binomial system. If every genus or subgenus is to contain but one species (as it seems likely will one day be the case), it would be simpler to give each species one name instead of two. On the other hand, if ​the subdivisions adopted by Mr. Wharton be justifiable, one cannot help noting the inconsistency which marks the separation of, say, Gecinus from Picus, while the Yellow Wagtails are allowed to remain in the same genus as their Pied relatives. Why should the Serin Finch, which possesses all the essential characters of Fringilla, be removed from the genus in which it was placed by Linnæus and dignified with a genus of its own? Why should the Green Sandpiper be removed from its recognized proximity to Totanus glareola, and have a genus to itself—Helodromas? We are aware that in the skeletons of these two birds a difference is observable in the posterior emargination of the sternum; but this seems scarcely suf15cient to warrant a generic separation of two species which, in regard to external form, structure of bill, foot, and tarsus, flight, note, habits, mode of feeding, colour of eggs, and manner of rearing their young, are obviously as closely allied as any two species can well be.
These and many other questions of a similar kind suggest themselves as we glance through the 'List.'
In regard to the inconsistencies of terminations, to which we have referred, an instance or two will best illustrate our meaning. We observe that the Redstart is named Ruticilla phoenicurus, Linn., presumably because Mr. Wharton was unwilling to alter the form of the specific name bestowed by Linnæus. For the same reason, apparently, we have Erithacus rubecula. And yet in the case of the great Reed Warbler and the common Reed Wren, Mr, Wharton has altered the termination of the specific names given by Linnæus and Vieillot from arundinacea and strepera to arundinaceus and streperus, to agree in gender with the genus Acrocephalus, in which he has placed them.
We notice that Parus britannicus, recently differentiated by Messrs. Sharpe and Dresser, and Motacilla cinerocapilla, Savi, identified by Mr. Gould and Mr. Gurney as accidentally occurring in this country, are not recognized. Neither does Mr. Wharton recognise the British form of the Longtailed Titmouse, which he calls Acredula caudata of Linnæus, although he distinguishes our Nuthatch from the Sitta europæa of Linnæus, and calls it, no doubt correctly, Sitta cæsia of Wolf and Meyer.
We observe, also, that several species, as Vireosylvia olivacea, Regulus calendula, Picus villosus, Picus pubescens, Ceryle alcyon, ​Cypselus caudacutus, Charadrius fulvus, and many others, are omitted entirely from the List, although, according to Mr. Wharton's own definition, they ought to be "rightly considered British," since they have "at least once, beyond doubt, occurred in a truly wild state within the area of the British Isles."
In regard to the specific names adopted we have not much criticism to offer, because in most instances, as we have already remarked, the rules for zoological nomenclature have been strictly applied, and priority has been given to the oldest name to which a recognisable description has been attached. We may, however, point out one or two instances in which we consider it possible that Mr. Wharton may be mistaken. Is not the Firecrest Regulus ignicapillus of Jenyns, not Brehm? The first-named naturalist, in his 'Manual of British Vertebrate Animals,' p. 113, certainly writes, "R. ignicapillus, nobis." Should not Falco peregrinus, Tunstall, be F. peregrinus, Gmelin?—unless Tunstall, in his 'Ornithologia Britannica,' 1771, of which we have never seen a copy, forestalled Gmelin's description of this species, which was not published until 1778.
We should like to know Mr.Wharton's reasons for identifying the Spotted Eagle, which has occurred half-a-dozen times in this country, with the Aquila clanga of Pallas, instead of with the smaller Aquila nævia of Gmelin, with which it has generally been identified by British naturalists. Sterna macrura, Naumann, as Mr. Wharton has it, ought surely to be Sterna hirundo, Linnaeus; and Alca arra of Pallas is an older name for Brünnich's Guillemot than A. brunnichi of Sabine. We may point out, too, that the American Little Stint, which has accidentally occurred in this country on two occasions, is not, as Mr. Wharton supposes, the "Semipalmated Sandpiper," Ereunetes pusillus (Linnæus), but the smaller species, with toes cleft to the base, upon which Wilson, in 1813, bestowed the name of Tringa pusilla, and which many ornithologists call minutilla, Vieillot, although erroneously so, for Vieillot's name was not proposed until 1819.
Did space permit we might extend our criticisms considerably; but we think enough has been said to show that, while Mr. Wharton certainly merits the gratitude of British ornithologists for the great pains which he has evidently bestowed upon the undertaking, his 'List of British Birds' is still not quite so perfect a one as we may hope some day to see published.
This, a second edition of a List printed on one side only for labelling cabinets, and extending only to the end of the Noctuæ, is intended chiefly for the use of collectors of butterflies and large moths. In a few lines of Preface the author informs us that "the system pursued in his list is that the scientific names should follow Doubleday's arrangement, subject to a corrected spelling where the Greek or Latin root proves it to be necessary, in which case the name as it should be written appears first, followed by the name which years of error have now rendered admissible. The first English name is usually that adopted by Newman, while those which follow are merely local synonyms, useful perhaps for comparison, but not required in all cases."
From this it will be seen that Mr. Browne has set himself the task of revising the nomenclature, and of adding what he terms English "synonyms," but by which he of course means English local names. As regards the first part of the undertaking, we are sorry to say that either a large number of typographical errors have been allowed to pass uncorrected, or there has been a want of care on the part of the author, of which he is evidently not sensible. In a second edition this is the more noticeable. If Sæsia formicæformis be correctly altered to S. formiciformis, why do S. muscæformis and scoliæformis remain unchanged? Smerinthus and Heliophobus are no doubt correctly latinized in their terminations; but why are Brephos, Ennomos, Thanatos, &c., uncorrected? Dipthera surely should be Diphthera, and Symyra, Simyra.
We could point out other similar errors, which, although apparently trifling, become of some importance when the author, so to say, prides himself upon his skill in revision.
As regards the second part of Mr. Browne's self-imposed task, we have no duubt that many collectors whose hobby must often take them far afield will be glad to have the local names, especially of the rarer insects, with which this List supplies them.