DR. J. J. KAUP'S MONOGRAPH OF THE STRIGID^. 259 



I have, as far as was in my power, examined the skulls of all the ten genera, and 

 have found that genera like Nyctea, Brachyotus, Ketupa, Lophostrix, Ciccaba, Ulula, 

 and Ptynx have no important osteological characters to separate them from Surnia, 

 Otus, Bubo, and Syrnium. 



It would have been conformable with my plan to have given figures of the skulls and 

 skeletons of all the genera and subgenera, for the mind more readily receives these 

 distinctions when presented through the eye than by written descriptions ; but I have 

 been unable to furnish more than a portion of them. 



I request that those savants who may in future number the subgenera as true genera 

 will estabhsh their position by showing good osteological points of difference, — such 

 as exist between Scops and Otus, Otus and Bubo, Bubo and Strix, Strix and Syrnium. 



Any German, English, or French ornithologist who can give proof, in the manner 

 stated, that one of these subgenera is a real genus (as for example Ketupa or Scotopelia), 

 will have the satisfaction of overthrowing the whole of my opinions, because I advance 

 the bold maxim that all the genera of the Strigidce belonging to our Creation are 

 already discovered, and that the only new species which will ever come to light will 

 prove to be some small subgenera in the genera Glaucidium, Nyctale, Surnia, &c. 



I found a great part of my subgenera already named, and have therefore continued 

 them in the same form ; for it is a matter of no great moment whether the small groups 

 bear Latin names or are signified by letters or numbers : for my own part, I prefer a 

 name bearing some signification rather than a senseless letter or number. All the 

 small subgenera exist, and having some distinct external characters, must consequently 

 bear separate- names. 



Whether ornithologists will persist, in defiance of reason, still to class as genera the 

 subgenera Nyctea, &c., or conform to my plan of placing newly discovered species in 

 one or the other of my small subgenera, time only can show. If they should hold to 

 the opinion that they can, by mere outward appearances, distinguish the true genera 

 without consulting the comparative osteology and anatomy, and upon such incon- 

 clusive grounds elevate the small subgenera to true genera, then I must beg that so 

 great a fallacy may never be connected with my name. 



In regard to species, and their rank in every subgenus, I leave a large field for 

 corrections. The greater part of my materials were collected whilst travelling, and I 

 had not then the time to determine the true rank of each species. This can only be 

 done by comparing it with all its allied species, and not with some two or three only. 



When we have discovered the greater part of the species, we shall find that most 

 of these are divided into subspecies ; for example, all the Asiatic species which are 

 near to Scops lempiji, and all the American species which are near to Scops asio, are 

 subspecies. In a similar manner to the arrangement of each subgenus within the 

 limits of its proper genus, so also must the subspecies be placed under its true species. 



