~ 
Audubon’s Ornithology, First Volume. — 353 
The seventy birds that are given in this volume comprise all 
the birds of prey, the swallows, swifts, goat suckers, and the fly 
catchers. ‘These are divided in the work as follows: The vul- 
tures form the family Vulturine, with but one genus, Cathartes. 
The falcons are all included in the family Falconine, which is 
subdivided into the following genera,—polyborus, buteo, or buz- 
zard, aquila, or eagle, haliaetus, or sea eagle, pandion, or fish- 
hawk: elanus, ictinia, or kite, nauclerus, or swallow-tailed hawk, 
falco, astur, and circus. e third family, Striginee, embrace the 
six genera of owls, “ai or day owl, ulula, or night owl, 
strix, or screech owl, symium, or hooting otal otus, or eared oil, 
and bubo, or horned owl. ‘The goat suckers make another fam- 
ily, Caprimulgin, containing the genera of caprimulgus and 
chordeiles, or night-hawk. To the single species of swift are de- 
voted the fifth family, Cypselinee, and the genus cheetura. ‘The 
swallows are all embraced in the single genus hirundo, family 
Hirundine. ‘The fly catchers, family Muscicapine, are divided 
into the four genera of milvulus, muscicapa, ilegoarss and culi- 
civora. 
We have said that dis system by which Mr. Audubon has ar- 
ranged the birds of America, both in the Synopsis and the Orni- 
thology, is one upon which we cannot bestow our humble favor. 
In spite of the arrogant and intolerable assumption on the part of 
advocates abroad, and especially of him who has so undeservedly 
laid claim to the title of the English Cuvier, and who pretends 
that no objections have or can be brought against the system, we 
eae all humility,” ‘venture to suggest what to our rash bu 
. ) judgment appears somewhat in the light of one at 
2 defect in the system, to 66 no farther ; enough in our estima- 
tion to render it worse than no system atall. _ We mean the idle, 
unnecessary, and, especially to the beginner, most perplexing sub- 
divisions into new genera. _We might quote the language of the 
naturalist himself to whom we refer, were it necessary, to prove 
the evils of this needless multiplication of new genera. But 
they are too apparent of themselves to require the equivocal 
weight of his authority. We appeal to the very work before us 
in evidence of the validity of our objections. No portion of the 
feathered tribe is more strongly marked in their characteristics 
than the birds of prey. It is in them therefore that the folly of 
the fashionable subdivisions of the present day are most conspic- 
