222 COOPER' S HAWK. 



least be pointed out ; not so mucli regarding the number of our sub- 

 genera, as the characters that unite the species of which they are 

 respectively composed. 



It is objected to the numerous subdivisions that have been proposed 

 in our day, that they pass into, and blend insensibly with each other. 

 This is no doubt true ; but is it not the same with regard to natural 

 groups of every denomination ? It is this fact which has induced us to 

 consider them as subgenera, and not as distinct genera. We are told, 

 however, by the advocates for numerous genera, that in giving a name 

 we adopt a genus ; but we do not see that this necessarily follows. 



There are, we confess, other grounds on which we might be attacked 

 with more advantage. We may perhaps be charged with inconsistency 

 in refusing to admit as the foundation of generic groups in the Rapaces, 

 characters, which are allowed, not only by ourselves, but by some of 

 those who are most strenuously opposed to the multiplication of genera, 

 to have quite sufficient importance for such distinction in other families. 

 With what propriety, it might be asked, can we admit Ilydrohates 

 {FuUgula, Nob.), as distinct from Anas, and the various genera that 

 have been dismembered from Lanius, at the same time that we reject, 

 as genera, the different groups of Hawks ? To this we can only reply, 

 that we are ourselves entirely convinced, that all the subgenera adopted 

 in our Synopsis among the Falco7ies of North America, are quite as 

 distinct from each other as Coccyzus and Cuculus, or Corvus and 

 Garrulus. The latter genus we have admitted after Temminck, who is 

 opposed to new genera among the Hawks ; though Astui- and Elanus 

 certainly require to bo separated, no less than the two genera that 

 Temminck himself has established in the old genus Vultur. 



No living naturalist (with the exception of those, who, through 

 a sort of pseudo-religious feeling, will only admit as genera, groups 

 indicated as such by Linnd) has adhered longer than ourselves, to large 

 genera; at the same time that we could not deny the existence of sub- 

 ordinate natural groups. We will not pretend to deny that these are 

 of equal rank- with some recognised as genera in other families; and 

 we can only say, that we consider it doubtful, in the present unsettled 

 state of the science, what this rank ought to be. We therefore, in the 

 instances above quoted, consider it of little importance, whether these 

 groups be considered as genera or subgenera. 



But what is certainly of great importance, is, to preserve uniformity 

 in all such cases ; to make co-ordinate divisions, and give corresponding 

 titles to groups of equal value. This uniformity, however desirable, 

 cannot, in the actual state of ornithology, be easily attained ; and we have 

 decided, after much hesitation, to continue to employ subgenera. In 

 doing this, we are moreover influenced by the great difficulty that is met 

 with, in some cases, in determining the proper place of a species par- 



