Order— F ALCONIFORMES. 
I USE this name in preference to the one hitherto used by me, foUowing 
Sharpe in the “ Handlist,” viz., Accipitriformes, as it is based on the oldest 
genus name in the group. As a matter of fact Vultur has page precedence, 
but the exact position of Vultur cannot be said to be settled. The genus 
does not occur in Australia, and as there proves to be serious disagreement 
as to the actual relationship of that genus I prefer to make use of the 
above term. 
The Order covers birds of various sizes and forms, but all the members 
are easily recognised from those of any other group, save the following, 
by superficial characters, viz., the sharp-hooked bill with a cere at the base 
and the powerful feet provided with sharp-hooked claws. 
These show the birds to be predaceous in nature, and for that reason 
they were long placed at the head of the Avian system. 
Linne, in 1758, began his Aves with the Accipiters, his genera being 
Vultur, Falco, Strix and Lanius. The admission of the last-named genus 
seems strange at the present time, but it was of consistent inclusion. 
The recognition of the Birds of Prey at the head of affairs lasted 
almost a hundred years without cliallenge, and it must be remembered that 
the famous Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum began in 1873 with 
this group. Their position had, however, been ridiculed by the greatest 
student of the group, viz. Kaup, some thirty years previously. The exact 
relationship is not perfectly defined even at the present time, and I here give 
a short account of the vicissitudes of the constituents of the group. I, how- 
ever, cannot hope to throw any light upon the phylogeny of the family, as 
they offer a most perfect example of convergence in evolution, or llomoplasy, 
in almost every direction. Superficially they* are so alike that one must 
grasp the slightest characters that are offered to define the genera. 
Gler ra-splitting has become universal, and the more study a worker has 
given this group the more genera has he recognised. This is also seen, 
as will hereafter be recorded, in the work of the osteologist, who has 
shown genera regarded superficially as closely related to be internally very 
different and who, moreover, has recognised that genera doubtfully so 
considered are very peculiarly defined when their osteology is consulted. 
Under such circumstances genus-splitting is the only course really available. 
VOL. V. 
1 
