2%Q, Made in United States of America Reprinted from THE AUK Vol. 107, No. 2, April 1990 Copyright ?) 1990 by The American Ornithologists' Union The Birds of New South Wales: A Working List.? Ian A. W. McAllan and Murray D. Bruce. "1988" = 1989. Turramurra, New South Wales, Biocon Research Group, vii + 103 pp., 1 map. ISBN 0-958751609. Paper, no price indicated.?This seems to be essentially a privately produced publication, attractively printed in a large format, done "in association with the New South Wales Bird Atlassers," whose objective is "to monitor the birds of New South Wales." This "work- ing list" is intended to form "the species base upon which information is recorded and collated." In real- ity, however, it is a forum for the authors to express their opinions on all sorts of matters pertaining to scientific nomenclature, common names, bibliog- raphy, distribution, and history. It extends to such subjects as the origin of the surname Linnaeus and the etymology of names of colors. Although decid- edly idiosyncratic, it is of more than just local concern to ornithologists. Those interested in birds of Oceania will want to consult this work because it covers Lord Howe Island, which is politically part of the Australian State of New South Wales. Norfolk Island is not included, however, because, although "Norfolk Islanders vote federally as part of NSW, they do not vote in state elections"?a bizarre rationalization. The authors might more candidly have said they didn't include Norfolk Island because they didn't want to. Political boundaries do not constrain the authors when they care to digress, as in their description of a new sub- species of Sarus Crane {a species that does not occur in New South Wales), which they have chosen to place in their account of what they call the Green- necked Stork (Ephippiorhynchus australis). The authors have delved into a lot of ancient and recondite sources, and they incorporate the results of a wealth of recent publications as well. An example is the useful summary of the so-called literature on the near-mythical Cox's Sandpiper (Calidris parame- lanotis). For now, any discussion of this "species" not based on specimens is less than worthless. There is a most dissatisfying propensity of the authors to cite newspaper articles, "pers. comm.," and the like, when something more substantial is called for. The nomen- clature mostly reflects uncritical acceptance of all that is new as being good, although there is a very heavy bias towards generic splitting and elevating subspe- cies to the level of species. Numerous points of no- menclature and orthography are raised that deserve serious evaluation (e.g. Imber's subgenus Proaestralata [1985] being preoccupied by Oestrelatella Bianchi [1913]). I was disappointed to find the same old apocryphal etymology of the color "Isabella" or "isabelline," when such a standard reference as the "Oxford English Dic- tionary" has shown this to be a chronological im- possibility, since Queen Elizabeth's wardrobe was de- scribed in 1600 as including "one rounde gowne of Isabella-colour satten," some five years before the archduchess Isabella is alleged to have shed her soiled underwear at the end of the seige of Ostend. Such pseudoerudition is unfortunately too characteristic of the work as a whole, so that this list is best used as a guide to further literature rather than as a definitive reference in itself. McAllan and Bruce use this "working list" to in- troduce four new subspecies and one new subgenus of birds, in a less than rigorous manner. Inside the back cover of the book, the authors have placed a long "Important Notice" (dated 28 February 1989) in which publication delays are discussed and in which they accuse a well-known Australian ornithologist of having deliberately preempted their new subspecies' descriptions by rushing into print with them himself April 1990] Reviews 459 in Canberra Bird Notes, "a local periodical. . . produced and instant printed in a type-written format, and ar- guably unsuitable for the publication of such taxo- nomic work." That their own list is hardly a proper vehicle for naming new taxa does not deter them, however. The whole affair recalls the scandal surrounding the description of Calidris paramelanotis and the recent furor over certain systematic works in Australian her- petology (see 1987, Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 44:116-121). Although McAllan and Bruce decry the spread of "the paranoia observed in some elements of the herpeto- logical community" to ornithology, they seem equal- ly paranoid themselves. In their discussion of Cy- anoramphus (p. 45), where they erect a new subgenus for C. cookii (the only characters mentioned being "larger, darker green ,. . with a different bill mor- phology"), they suggest that the "extinct southeast Polynesian forms may represent a third subgenus." Then, on an errata sheet dated 29 May 1989 (with reverse sequence of authorship), to correct "inad- vertent omissions from the final proofing," they pro- pose the name Notapsittacus as a new subgenus for these birds. Although they at least designate a type (C. ulietensis), absolutely no diagnosis or discussion of characters of this supposed taxon is provided. To make matters trebly horrific, Notapsittacus is preoccupied by Notapsittacus Roberts, 1922, proposed as a subgenus of the African parrot Poicephalus. This is not an elusive fact, either, as Notopsittacus Roberts is listed as a syn- onym of Poicephalus in Volume 3 of Peters' "Check- list of Birds of the World" and appears in the General Index of that work published in 1987 (sources cer- tainly well-known to Bruce and McAllan). There is simply no excuse for such sloppiness, particularly by authors who have specialized in nomenclatural minu- tiae. Notopsittacus Bruce and McAllan, 1989, being a preoccupied name proposed with no diagnosis in an errata sheet, has my nomination as the worst "new" avian taxon published in the 20th century. It is a pity that it has so much close competition. I am not sure just what is going on in systematic vertebrate zoology in Australia. Perhaps it is a case of too many amateurs trying to be professionals, and too many professionals acting like amateurs. What- ever it is, I wish it would stop, and that the parties involved would start to take the introduction of new taxa seriously and go about it in an acceptably sci- entific manner.?STORRS L. OLSON.