PREFACE. xi 



As I stated before, we are told it is the "progress 

 of science" that demands that any little peculiarity 

 in these thirteen birds should form the basis for 

 erection into a separate genus, and that other owls, 

 in different parts of the world, require a greater 

 division to ensure a more correct classification 

 according to real or assumed affinities. 



But I deny the justice of such a statement 

 altogether. If they are owls, then let them be 

 comprised under one generic distinction; if not, let 

 separate genera be erected for them, and leave 

 our European birds in the position in which men 

 like Linnceus and Temminck have placed them. 

 If the group requires dividing, the process is very 

 simple. You can have "Hawk Owls" and "Horned 

 Owls"— "Day-flying Owls" and "Night-flying Owls" 

 — but let us still have the one distinctive, ex- 

 pressive name of Strix to fall back upon. 



What I have said of the owls applies almost 

 as forcibly to all other well-marked groups. They 

 are subdivided and split up into innumerable 

 divisions, without the slightest gain to the classifier, 

 but with a certain loss to the student. 



Looking over one of the most recent ornitholo- 

 gical works, I find that one woodpecker is called 

 a Ilypopicus, because part of its plumage resembled 

 another bird! Another is called Yungipicus; a 

 third Hemicircus, a fourth Chrysocalaptes ; while 

 the Great Black Woodpecker of India delights in 

 the euphonious compound of u Mulleripicus hodg- 



