1 62 SHUFELDT. [Vol. XVII. 



place the owls next to the diurnal birds of prey that any 

 attempt to remove them from that position cannot fail to incur 

 criticism. Yet when we disregard their carnivorous habits, and 

 certain modifications which may possibly be thereby induced, 

 we find almost nothing of value to indicate relationship be- 

 tween them. That the Striges stand quite independently of the 

 Accipitres as above limited can hardly be doubted, and, while 

 the Psittaci, or parrots, would on some grounds appear to be the 

 nearest allies of the Accipitres, the nearest relations of the owls 

 must be looked for in the multifarious group Picarice. Here 

 we have the singular Steatornis, which, long confounded with 

 the CaprimulgidcB, has at last been recognized as an inde- 

 pendent form, and one cannot but think that it has branched 

 off from a common ancestor with the owls." But the same 

 eminent authority, in the volume just quoted, under the article 

 " Owl," further says, on page 89, that " the owls form a very 

 natural assemblage, and one about the limits of which no doubt 

 has for a long time existed. Placed by nearly all systematists 

 for many years as a family of the order Accipitres (or whatever 

 may have been the equivalent term used by the particular tax- 

 onomers), there has been of late a disposition to regard them 

 as forming a group of higher rank. On many accounts it is 

 plain that they differ from the ordinary diurnal birds of prey 

 more than the latter do among themselves ; and, though in 

 some respects owls have a superficial likeness to the goat- 

 suckers, and a resemblance more deeply seated to the Guac- 

 haro, even the last has not been made out to have any strong 

 affinity to them." ^ 



" A good deal is therefore to be said for the opinion which 

 would regard the owls as forming an independent order, or, at 

 any rate, suborder, Striges. Whatever be the position assigned 

 to the group, its subdivision has always been a fruitful matter 

 of discussion, owing to the great resemblance obtaining among 

 all its members, and the existence of safe characters for its 

 division has only lately been at all generally recognized." 



1 Nevertheless, Professor Newton believes, at least, that Steatornis " has 

 branched off from a common ancestor with the owls." (Compare first quota- 

 tion above.) — R. W. S. 



