The Hawfinch 



49 



bird, is quarrelsome, spiteful, and can on no account be trusted in an aviary with 

 an}' species weaker than itself. It is, moreover, full}' as much trouble to its 

 owner in respect of food as many a far more attractive species : j-et, according to the 

 late Rev. H. A. Alacpherson, it has one merit ; although its own song is insig- 

 nificant, the Hawfinch is not wholl}' destitute of the imitative facult}'. In ni}' 

 friend the late Charles A. Witchell's interesting work on tlie "Evolution of Bird- 

 song," we read (p. 172): "Even so poor a songster as the Hawfinch will imitate 

 when a captive. The Rev. H. A. Macpherson imforms me that they will pick up 

 any soiinds." 



Nevertheless, when a bird has no beaut}^ of form, and when its colouring is 

 little superior to that of a hen Chaffinch, its song should compensate for other 

 deficiencies ; and, as Major Alexander von Home3'er remarks (Gefiederte Welt, 

 Vol. XX, p. 4S9) the cherry-kernel biter is "not gifted with natural song." 



It appears to me that, in dealing with British birds, it is far more convenient 

 to introduce the Bullfinches (the so-called Gro.sbeaks) immediately after the true 

 Grosbeaks : in their habits the}- are not dissimilar ; whereas, to place them, as 

 Howard Saunders has done in his " Mauual," between the more slender-billed 

 Finches and the Buntings, seems rather unnatural : I have, therefore, not followed 

 him in this respect. 



There is not the least doubt that, so far as their habits are concerned, the 

 most typical Finches (that is the members of the genus Fyi>igiIIa) approach far 

 more closely to the Buntings than au}' other species of the Subfamily, and next 

 to I^ri)ioi/ln, I should consider Piisser (in spite of its aberrant nest) to show 

 relationship to the Emberizina: : I speak as an Avicultiirist of course, and do not 

 venture to criticize the classification from a structural standpoint. 



