FALC0NID7E. . 11 



among - the Falconidce, we should proceed upon the same principle of nomen- 

 clature with the Trochilidce ; and in place of limiting- the generic distinctions 

 of these latter birds to five, increase the number to twenty^iive, as soon as 

 the subordinate types have been detected. We believe that the warmest advo- 

 cates for generic distinctions would protest against such a measure ; and we feel 

 assured that, by the great body of ornithologists, such an innovation would, on 

 no account, be tolerated. It is unfortunate for those who, like ourselves, may be 

 accused of proposing new genera, that in no one department in ornithology has this 

 principle been pushed to such a point of refinement as among the Falconidce ; 

 and as very many forms, equally deserving generic appellations, \must be named 

 and characterized, to render the nomenclature of this family consistent with the 

 adoption of these genera, suspect that the reproach cast upon the modern school, 

 of making every species a genus, would, in this instance at least, be not altogether 

 unmerited. 



In considering the five forms of the Falconidce as genera, rather than as sub- 

 families, we by no means insinuate that the minor distinctions which have been 

 dwelt upon by several able ornithologists who have investigated this family, are 

 either trivial, or that they deserve not to be brought immediately before us. On 

 the contrary, we should recommend to others the plan which we ourselves adopt, — 

 the minute examination of every change of structure, and the assembling together, 

 in minor groups, such species as agree in certain peculiarities. Nay, further, we 

 should proceed, in certain cases, even to impose a name upon such groups. 

 But, in a family already so crowded by generic names, we consider it essential to 

 preserve a distinction between groups of unequal value ; and not to elevate sub- 

 genera, or forms of transition, to a rank they do not hold. Milvago, Polyborus, 

 Daptrius, and Ibj/cter, are unquestionably of the latter description, each con- 

 fined but to one species. We have another of the same natural group in our own 

 cabinet, equally deserving a patronymic name. By regarding these as genera, 

 each is made equivalent, for instance, to the whole genus of typical Falcons ; 

 whereas, by representing them as lesser variations, which in truth they are, the 

 student immediately perceives that their station is subordinate. 



A further advantage is gained by this principle of nomenclature : we shall be 

 unshackled in characterizing those minor forms or groups which yet remain to be 

 designated ; while, by not bringing them forward to a prominent station in our 

 arrangement, we shall assimilate our nomenclature more to the wishes and opinions 

 of the majority of naturalists, without in the least sacrificing that minuteness and 

 precision, which the student of nature can scarcely carry too far. Sw. 



C 2 



