THE BIEDS OF AUSTEALIA. 
include three natural groups sufficiently distinct to be treated as at least 
separate subgenera, bearing the several names of Dissodectes, Tinnunculus and 
Erythropus. . . . {Ibis 1882, p. 146). I have now to refer to the two species 
which constitute the subgenus Erythropus, and which seem to me to form a 
distinct natural group intermediate between the true Kestrels and the 
Hobbies. . . . (p. 152). The remainder of the Falcons are arranged by 
Mr. Sharpe under two genera — Falco and Hierofalco ; but it seems to me that 
they may be more naturally assorted into the following generic or subgeneric 
groups, viz., Hypotriordiis, Msalon, CTiicquera, Falco ^ Gennaia and Hierofalco.^'' 
In the List of Diurnal Birds of Prey, Gurney admitted the genera 
Dissodectes, Tinnunculus (with subgenus Eryihropus), Hypotriorchis, Msalon, 
Chicquera and Falco (with subgenera Gennaia and Hierofalco). 
It may be observed that Gurney talks about “ natural groups.” Eecent 
writers, whom I shall afterward quote, deny the existence of “ natural genera,” 
so that it is not surprising that their ideas do not coincide with those of 
Gurney. 
In the Handlist of Genera and Species of Birds, Vol. I., 1899, Sharpe 
relented so far as to admit as a genus Erythropus, but otherwise ignored 
Gurney’s work. 
In the American Ornithologists' Union's Checklist, 3rd Ed., 1910, one 
genus Falco is admitted with five subgenera Hierofalco, Rhynchodon, Tinnun- 
culus, Bhynchofalco and Cerchneis. This is not a natural grouping. 
In the Handlist of British Birds by Hartert, Jourdain, Ticehurst and 
Witherby, this same genus Falco is admitted with no subgenera. 
An attempt, quite unsatisfactory, to improve upon this appeared in the 
B. 0. U. List of British Birds, 2nd Ed., 1915, where two genera Hierofalco 
and Falco were utilised. 
In the Nov. Zool., Vol. XXII., p. 183, 1915, Hartert quoted Hierofalco 
candicans as used by Sharpe, and against the genus name wrote : “ An 
unnecessary burden ! Moreover, wrongly limited, because all the Lanner 
group belong to the same section, having absolutely the same structure of 
the feet and otherwise.” 
This is a rather remarkable statement from the writer after stating 
“ Falcons have been my favourite birds,” and “ I have doubtless examined 
more Falcons than any one else.” These remarks may be quite true, but I 
would conclude from a study of Gurney’s articles that Gurney examined 
Falcons more critically, and his conclusions as to their affinities are more 
valuable than Hartert’s lumping. 
I herewith give my criticism of the groups made from an examination 
of the birds and without dependence upon any published results. 
222 
