On the Groups of the Fakonidce. !^^ 



it is the same character which still further points out the analogy 

 that so strikingly forces itself upon our notice, between the Birds 

 of Prey and the Carnivorous Mammalia. The bill of a bird, it is 

 true, can but ill represent the strong developement of the teeth 

 that belongs to the mammiferous animals: but as far as it is possi- 

 ble, the notch preserves the character by exhibiting at least the 

 rudiments of it in an analogical structure. If then we are satis- 

 fied with this striking character as a mark of distinction between 

 universally admitted genera, or even still more comprehensive 

 groups, and solely on account of its being indicative of the habits 

 of rapine, surely we can not hesitate to adopt it as a mark of 

 generick distinction among the birds of rapine themselves, [t is 

 unnecessary to add, that this character is found to distinguish the 

 true Falcons from the rest of the family, and to exist among them 

 even in a more perfect state of developement than in the admitted 

 groups to which I have alluded. I say nothing here of the other 

 strong points of distinction both in form and manners that are 

 uniformly found united with it in the same genus of Falco : the 

 single character of the notched bill is all that I insist on. If we 

 Ao not admit it here as a sufficient generick distinction, we must 

 equally reject it as such in the divisions that it has hitherto cha- 

 racterized, without a doubt as to its validity. 



I dwell the more upon this point, as the great difficulty which 

 we have to combat in the present state of the science in this 

 country, respecting the separation of the Fakonidce , is the posi- 

 tive denial on the part of those who oppose the modern views on 

 the subject, of the possibility of separating the family at all. The , 

 species, it is confidently asserted, exhibit no distinctive character, 

 they differ no wise but as species, they are all indiscriminately 

 Falcones. If I have succeeded in pointing out even one decisive 

 characteristick of distinction, my point is gained, and the separa- 

 tion of the group must follow. The centre of opposition is forced, 

 and the minour positions will fall in of course and in detail. In 

 truth, I know no groups in Ornithology, which are united in one 

 family, more decisively characterized as separate, than those 

 before us ; nor any, where the marks of distinction are more 

 immediately recognised even by the common observer. I will 



