DR. J. J. KAUP’S MONOGRAPH OF THE STRIGIDA. 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 Ptynz 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 establish 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 Strigide 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, Surma, &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 lempyi, 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. 
