proof, at least, that its affinities to A stur and to the aberrant Eagles adjoining that
group, have not escaped observation. Our idea, that the Buzzards are truly united
to the Eagles, is still further strengthened by the Buteo pterocles, Temm., of which
a fine series of specimens, from Mexico, has been submitted to our inspection
by John Taylor, Esq., F.R.S., &c. In this species, the wings, as in Buteo, are
remarkably long, but the bill is so considerably lengthened, that .were we to judge
alone from this member, we should have no scruple in placing the bird among
the Aquilte. On the other hand, it must be remembered, that as every group,
from the highest to the lowest denomination, when perfect, contains a representation
of the other four, united to a form peculiar to itself; so we might naturally
expect that one division of the Buzzards would represent the true Eagles. To
ascertain, therefore, whether the resemblances above stated are those of analogy,
or of real affinity, recourse must be had to strict analysis. Now this, in
our present state of knowledge, cannot be done, at least from the resources to be
found in this country. W e have thought it advisable to cite the above facts,
drawn from the structure of the birds themselves, as likely to awaken the attention
of ornithologists to a further investigation of the subject; they will, at least,
show that our opinion on the unity of the three aberrant groups, is not entirely
witIhno urte gfoaurndd taot itohne. relative value of the whole group, we consider it equivalent
to that of Vultur or of Strix in its own order, and to the families composing the
Rasores, Grallatores, and Natatores. We shall, therefore, in conformity with this
impression, contemplate the five principal divisions as genera, arranging the subordinate
forms, which have been by some naturalists elevated to that rank, as
sub-genera ;—an uniformity of nomenclature between groups of the same apparent
rank will thus be preserved. But it is not this consideration alone which
has influenced our decision. Diversified as are the forms among the Falconidce,
they are certainly not more so than what may be observed among the Trockilidce. Both these families are so strongly marked, that the veriest tyro in the science
can never mistake them; but the Falcons, from their imposing size, by which their
peculiarities are rendered more apparent, have attracted more attention, and have
been divided and subdivided, until one-half of the modern genera contain but a
single species: while the Trochilidse, exhibiting among themselves a much greater
diversity of structure, have only lately been arranged under their primary groups*.
If, then, we are to adopt, as genera, all the minor divisions that have been proposed
* Z o ol.Jo urnHi., p. 357»
among the Falconidce, we should proceed upon the same principle of nomenclature
with the Trochilidce ; and in place of limiting the generic distinctions
of these latter birds to five, increase the number to twenty-five, as soon as
the subordinate types have been detected. We believe that the warmest advocates
for generic distinctions would protest against such a measure ; and we feel
assured that, by the great body of ornithologists, such an innovation would, on
no account, be tolerated. It is unfortunate for those who, like ourselves, may be
accused of proposing new genera, that in no one department in ornithology has this
principle been pushed to such a point of refinement as among the Falconidce; and as very many forms, equally deserving generic appellations, must be named
and characterized, to render the nomenclature of this family consistent with the
adoption of these genera, suspect that the reproach cast upon the modern school,
of making every species a genus, would, in this instance at least, be not altogether
unmIne rcitoends.idering the jive forms of the Falconidce as genera, rather than as subfamilies,
we by no means insinuate that the minor distinctions which have been
dwelt upon by several able ornithologists who have investigated this family, are
either trivial, or that they deserve not to be brought immediately before us. On
the contrary, we should recommend to others the plan which we ourselves adopt,—-
the minute examination of every change of structure, and the assembling together,
in minor groups, such species as agree in certain peculiarities. Nay, further, we
should proceed, in certain cases, even to impose a name upon such groups.
But, in a family already so crowded by generic names, we consider it essential to
preserve a distinction between groups of unequal value ; and not to elevate subgenera,
or forms of transition, to a rank they do not hold. Milvago, Polyborus,
Daptrius, and Ibycter, are unquestionably of the latter description, each confined
but to one species. We have another of the same natural group in our own
cabinet, equally deserving a patronymic name. By regarding these as genera,
each is made equivalent, for instance, to the whole genus of typical Falcons;
whereas, by representing them as lesser variations, which in truth they are, the
student immediately perceives that their station is subordinate.
A further advantage is gained by this principle of nomenclature: we shall be
unshackled in characterizing those minor forms or groups which yet remain to be
designated ; while, by not bringing them forward to a prominent station in our
arrangement, we shall assimilate our nomenclature more to the wishes and opinions
of the majority of naturalists, without in the least sacrificing that minuteness and
precision, which the student of nature can scarcely carry too far. Sw.