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
