Auduhoii's Ornithology, First Volume. 353 



The seventy birds that are given in this volume comprise all 

 the birds of prey, the swallows, swifts, goat suckers, and the fly 

 catchers. These are divided in the work as follows : The vul- 

 tures form the family Vulturinse, with but one genus, Cathartes. 

 The falcons are all included in the family Falconinse, which is 

 subdivided into the following genera,— polyborus, buteo, or buz- 

 zard, aquila, or eagle, haliaetus, or sea eagle, pandion, or fish- 

 hawk, elanus, ictinia, or kite, nauclerus, or swallow-tailed hawk, 

 falco, astur, and circus. The third family, StrigiuEB, embrace the 

 six genera of owls, viz. surnia, or day owl, ulula, or night owl, 

 strix, or screech owl, symium, or hooting owl, otus, or eared owl, 

 and bubo, or horned owl. The goat suckers make another fam- 

 ily, Caprimulginse, containing the genera of caprimulgus and 

 chordeiles, or night-hawk. To the single species of swift are de- 

 voted the fifth family, Cypselinas, and the genus choetura. The 

 swallows are all embraced in the single genus hirundo, family 

 Hirundinas. The fly catchers, family Muscicapins, are divided 

 into the four genera of milvulus, muscicapa, ptilogonys, and culi- 

 civora. 



We have said that the system by which Mr. Audubon has ar- 

 ranged the birds of America, both in the Synopsis and the Orni- 

 thology, is one upon which we cannot bestow our humble favor. 

 In spite of the arrogant and intolerable assumption on the part of 

 advocates abroad, and especially of him who has so undeservedly 

 laid claim to the title of the English Cuvier, and who pretends 

 that no objections have or can be brought against the system, we 

 would, in all humility, venture to suggest what to our rash but 

 deliberate judgment appears somewhat in the light of one radi- 

 cal defect in the system, to go no farther ; enough in our estima- 

 tion to render it worse than no system at all. We mean the idle, 

 unnecessary, and, especially to the beginner, most perplexing sub- 

 divisions into new genera. We might quote the language of the 

 naturalist himself to whom we refer, were it necessary, to prove 

 the evils of this needless multiplication of new genera. But 

 they are too apparent of themselves to require the equivocal 

 weight of his authority. We appeal to the very work before us 

 in evidence of the validity of our objections. No portion of the 

 feathered tribe is more strongly marked in their characteristics 

 than the birds of prey. It is in them therefore that the folly of 

 the fashionable subdivisions of the present day are most conspic- 



