238 REVIEWS. 
agitation in the difficult genus Buteo, raised some years since by 
Dr. Bryant, is quieted by an unequivocal confirmation of the 
general tenor of that gentleman’s views ; elegans, calurus, monta- 
nus, Bairdii, insignatus, oxypterus, and albonotatus being all sup- 
pressed. Those that he gives as valid are, 1 (with four outer quills 
emarginate), Cooperi, Harlani, borealis, lineatus, zonocercus ; and 2 
(with three quills emarginate), Swainsoni, Suliginosus, albifrons, 
Pensylvanicus. Of these, Harlani and Cooperi, will bear further 
investigation ; neither fuliginosus nor albifrons really occurs within 
our limits ; so that the total number of our unquestionable species 
is only five. The northernmost Asturina (A. plagiata) is allowed ; 
so is Ictinia Mississippiensis. Falco polyagrus Cass., is properly 
referred to Mexicanus Schl.; certain differences that we pointed 
out some time since proving dependent upon age. Our Aquila is 
not mentioned, apparently through an oversight. 
The three new species are: 1. The Cuban and Haytian Tinnun- 
culus, called Falco leucophrys. 2. The American analogue of the 
European Merlin, figured and described by Richardson and Swain- 
son as Falco esalon, and subsequently spoken of by Cassin, our- 
selves, and others under the same name. Mr. Ridgway finds it 
quite distinct from @salon, as it certainly is from columbarius, and 
dedicates it to Dr. Richardson. 3. Onychotes Gruberi, n. g. et. 
Sp., is said to be “ utterly unlike any other American species. So 
much does it differ in structure, that we do not feel sure that it is 
not from some portion of the Old World, instead of from Cali- 
fornia” (p. 150), its reputed habitat. —E. C. 
THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE EARED SEALS.— Having been kindly 
apprized by Mr. Allen that he would be obliged to answer my 
review of his esteemed work ‘On the Otariade,” I awaited with 
interest the number of the Naturaist containing it. A few 
words in justification of the review seem to be called for. 
I cannot perceive that Mr. Allen has met the objections urged 
against the exclusive applicability and consequently the diagnostic 
value of the characters used in his diagnoses of the Oulophocine 
and Trichophocine, and after a careful perusal of Mr. Allen’s 
comments, I cannot admit that the significance of the tables * and 
*The cause of the ‘‘rather obscure comparative tables” is due to the way the 
printer was obliged to express the “ irregular” fractions (in the small type used) in 
connection with the whole numbers,.and I may add to the same cause is due the unu- 
sual presentation of the dental formule. 
