330 Mr. Vigors'9 Sketches in Ornithology. 



he characterizes as possessing no tooth on the upper mandible, but 

 a rounded prominence in the centre, and in which he observes 

 that the wings considerably fall short of the tail in length. With 

 all due respect to the authority of that distinguished naturalist, 

 whose exertions have so much enhanced the value of science, I 

 cannot acquiesce in his opinion respecting the characters of this 

 bird. I have examples at this moment before me of the Jerfalcon 

 in its different stages of growth, and in none do I perceive any 

 material difference between its bill and that of the true Falcons. 

 Although anxious for the establishment of every such division, as 

 may simplify the arrangement of extensive groups, I feel adverse 

 to the admission of one, which seems to possess no distinguishing 

 character, but what is purely specifick.* 



§. 4. Stirps Buteonina. Buzzards. 



The fourth division of the Falconidee, or that of the Buzzards, 

 agrees with the latter in the length of the wings, and the bill being 

 bent from the base. It is distinguished from it by a weaker and 

 somewhat more elongated bill, by the third or fourth quill feather 

 being the longest, and more particularly by the absence of a tooth 

 on the upper mandible. A gradation of affinities seems however, 



* I feel much hesitation in advancing the above opinion, not merely on 

 account of the known accuracy of the distinguished naturalist who has sepa- 

 rated the group, but on account of some facts that have lately come to my 

 knowledge. In the Briti-h Museum is a specimen of the F. Islandicus, in 

 which the upper mandible accords exactly with M. Cuvier's description ; — 

 " il n'a qu'un feslon comme celui des ignobles." In several lately arrived 

 specimens however from the Arciick regions in the same collection, the tooth is 

 found. We may observe that in the " Planches Enluminees," one of the figures 

 to which M. Ciivier refers [pi. 210] is, as he describes, without a tooth: the 

 acrotarsia also are scutellated, which is not the case in our Jerfalcon. The 

 second figure to which lie refers [pi. 440] has the rudiments only of the tooth 

 with the legs feathered to the toes; the third [pi, 462] has the tooth distinctly 

 marked. Is it possible that there are two species? This is a point which 

 requires elucidation. I cannot think that the character itself is variable, or 

 that M. Cuvier would have adopted one which must have been known to him 

 as such, even from the plates. In no specimen of a true Falcon have I seen 

 the slightest alteration in the structure of the tooth except by accident. 



