416 Mr. Strickland’s Commentary 
I am not aware that the Falco sufflator, L., the type of Physeta, 
Vieill., has been rediscovered since the time of Linnzus, who re- 
lates that it inflates the head with air. Perhaps some species of Owl, 
erecting the feathers when angry, has given rise to this statement. 
The name Hematornis, Vig., should be retained, instead of Spi- 
lornis, Gray, because the name Hematornis, Sw., though prior to 
Vigors’s name, should be changed to Jvos, Tem. (restr.). Vide infra. 
Cuvier in his ‘ Rég. An.’ admits Circaétus as a distinct genus, and 
does not include it under Haliaétus. 
To the Aquiline add the following genus : Harrastur, Selby,1840, 
= Haliaétus, Swains., < Falco, L. 
H. ponticerianus, (L.) Selby.—Briss. Orn. vol. i. pl. 35. 
This name was first given by Mr. Selby in his ‘ Catalogue of the 
Generic and Subgeneric Types of Birds.’ 8vo. Newcastle, 1840. 
The Falco subbuteo was first made into a genus by Boié under the 
name of Hypotriorchis, which name ought not to be superseded by 
Ray’s specific name Dendrofalco. I must, however, remark, that Falco 
pa Be ne and vespertinus seem not to deserve generic separation from 
Falco proper. Even Hierofalco is reunited to Falco by Bonaparte. 
The Kestrels were first defined as a genus by Boié under the name 
of Cerchneis, which name, therefore, ought to be retained. : 
Teracidea, Gould, ought to be written Hieracidea, the word iépag 
being aspirated. 
P.4. Gampsonyz, Vig., should be placed next Hlanus, Sav., from 
which it is chiefly distinguished by the shorter wings. 
For Aviceda, Sw., write Avicida (after the analogy of regicida, 
&c.). I have not seen this genus, but from the toothed bill, I should 
prefer placing it among the Falconine. 
Is it certain that the name Dedalion, Sav., is prior to Astur, 
Bechst.? The latter name has been so long current, that I should 
regret if the laws of priority compel its removal. 
P.5. The genus Nisus was defined by Lacepéde before 1800, but 
the name Accipiter, ‘“‘ Ray,” seems to have been first used generically 
by the late Mr. Vigors in 1824 ; therefore, according to the principle 
before explained, Nisus should have the preference. And even if 
Accipiter were retained, the specific name nisus, Lin., should not be 
changed for a word used prior to Linnzeus’s system of nomenclature. 
But in adopting the word Nisus as a genus, we require a new spe- 
cific name, and fringillarius, Vig., seems to be prior as such to com- 
munis, Cuv. 
Cuvier in his ‘ Rég. An.’ includes Ciccaba, Wagl., under Noctua 
and not under Surnia. 
To the synonyms of Athene, Boié, add Carine, Kaup. (Thier- 
reich, vol. ii. Darmstadt, 1836), a work which seems not to have 
fallen under Mr. Gray’s observation, and which contains a few ad- 
ditional genera which will be pointed out in their places. 
P. 6. Ketupu should be written Ketupa. It is better not to intro: 
duce barbarous names into science; but when done, they should at 
least have a Latin termination given them. 
Cuvier defines his genus Ulula as having a large opening to the 
