THE BIRDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
than is allowed in the present scheme, Gadow and Sharpe, for example, 
according it the rank of a family. That the Vultures have undergone a 
considerable amount of specialization there can be no doubt: but it seems 
equally certain that they are not far removed from the CircaUince. Suschkin 
recognises evidence of two distinct branches in this family — GypoTiierax 
standing at the base of one, and leading to Neophron and Gyps : Gypaetus at 
the base of the other, and leading to Vultur and Otogyps. The Gircaetinse 
includes Circaetus, Geranospizias, Helotarsus and Spilornis. Closely allied 
and intermediate between it and the next subfamily — the Gircinse — comes 
the highly specialised Polyborinsc. It seems to me that this subfamily 
might perhaps as well be included in the Gircinse, with which, as Dr. 
Suschkin shows, it has many characters in common, and in this I can 
confirm him. 
"‘The Gircinse embrace Circus, Geranospizias, Urotriorchis and Strigiceps. 
The Urubitinginse I have added on my own responsibility. Dr. Suschkin 
speaks of them as isolated forms related to the Circaetince. 
“The Buteoninae include Buteo, Archibuteo, T achy triorchis, GeranoaUus, 
Rupornis, Leucopternis, and apparently Busarellus, Butastur, Antenor and 
Asturinula. In the Accipitrinse Dr. Suschkin includes Accipiter, Astur, 
Melierax, Urospizias, Lophospizias, Scelospizias and Nisoides.’^ 
Py craft added: “Though we cannot regard this scheme as .final, yet, it 
must be admitted, it is one which is in many respects an advance upon 
previous arrangements of this most difficult of groups. In its construction 
an attempt has been made to follow the lines of phylogenetic descent, the 
only satisfactory basis of classification, yet a peculiarly difficult one in all 
questions of a vain descent, owing to the lack of annectant fossil forms.” 
An obvious mistake in this scheme is the admission of the subfamily 
Polyborinse twice, once under Falconidse and then under Buteonid8e. 
A gratifying point is the recognition from osteological characters of the 
genera Tinnunculus, Hypotriorchis, Hierofalco and Faho. That certain 
Australian forms are not genericaUy recognised, as leracidea, Hieraaetus, etc., 
may be put down to lack of material and not to absolute rejection. It 
must be admitted that special study, either given to external or internal 
characters, has led to the same result, a great splitting, which proves the 
difficulty of this group. 
The few forms occurring in Australia prohibit the investigation of the 
entire group in this place, but the preceding notes should be of value as 
showing the location of the Australian species. 
I would point out that in this group, once more, a peculiar endemism 
is observed, but here it is seen to be obviously due to specialization and 
8 
