41(3 



Mr. Strickland's Commentary 



I am not aware that the Falco suffiator, L., the type of Physeta, 

 Vieill., has been rediscovered since the time of Linnaeus, who re- 

 lates that it inflates the head with air. Perhaps some species of Owl, 

 erecting the feathers when angry, has given rise to this statement. 



The name Hamatornis, Vig., should be retained, instead of Spi- 

 lornis, Gray, because the name Hamatornis, Sw., though prior to 

 Vigors's name, should be changed to Iwos, Tern, (restr.). Vide infra. 



Cuvier in his ' Reg. An.' admits Circaetus as a distinct genus, and 

 does not include it under Haliaetus. 



To the Aquilina add the following genus : Haliastur, Selby,1840, 

 = Haliaetus, Swains., < Falco, L. 



H. ponticerianus, (L.) Selby. — Briss. Orn. vol. i. pi. 35. 



This name was first given by Mr. Selby in his ' Catalogue of the 

 Generic and Subgeneric Types of Birds.' 8vo. Newcastle, 1840. 



The Falco subbuteo was first made into a genus by Boie" under the 

 name of Hypotriorchis, which name ought not to be superseded by 

 Ra} T 's specific name Dendrofalco. I must, however, remark, that Falco 

 subbuteo and vespertinus seem not to deserve generic separation from 

 Falco proper. Even Hierofalco is reunited to Falco by Bonaparte. 



The Kestrels were first defined as a genus by Boie under the name 

 of Cerchneis, which name, therefore, ought to be retained. 



Ieracidea, Gould, ought to be written Hieracidea, the word UpaE, 

 being aspirated. 



P. 4. Gampsonyx, Vig., should be placed next Elanus, Sav., from 

 which it is chiefly distinguished by the shorter wings. 



For Aviceda, Sw., write Avicida (after the analogy of regicida, 

 &c). I have not seen this genus, but from the toothed bill, 1 should 

 prefer placing it among the Falconince. 



Is it certain that the name Dmdalion, Sav., is prior to Astur, 

 Bechst. ? The latter name has been so long current, that I should 

 regret if the laws of priority compel its removal. 



P. 5. The genus Nisusw&s defined by Lacepede before 1800, but 

 the name Accipiter, " Ray," seems to have been first used generically 

 by the late Mr. Vigors in 1824 ; therefore, according to the principle 

 before explained, Nisus should have the preference. And even if 

 Accipiter were retained, the specific name nisus, Lin., should not be 

 changed for a word used prior to Linnseus's system of nomenclature. 

 But in adopting the word Nisus as a genus, we require a new spe- 

 cific name, and fringillarius , Vig., seems to be prior as such to com- 

 munis, Cuv. 



Cuvier in his ' Reg. An.' includes Ciccaba, Wagl., under Noctua 

 and not under Surnia. 



To the synonyms of Athene, Boie, add Carine, Kaup. (Thier- 

 reich, vol. ii. Darmstadt, 1836), a work which seems not to have 

 fallen under Mr. Gray's observation, and which contains a few ad- 

 ditional genera which will be pointed out in their places. 



P. 6. Ketupu should be written Ketupa. It is better not to intro- 

 duce barbarous names into science ; but when done, they should at 

 least have a Latin termination given them. 



Cuvier defines his genus Uhla as having a large opening to the 



