THE BIEDS OF AUSTRALIA. 
even there a slight difference can be seen, as, though the second is still the 
longest, the first and third are subequal and little less. The feet are stronger 
and the toes are short and stout, the middle toe not especially long. When 
we see that the features, including coloration, peculiar to Falco are retained 
in RJiynchodon, though the size has increased to that of Hierofalco, the 
peculiarities of Hierofalco must be emphasized not minimized, and Hierofalco 
regarded as a genus. Tinnunculus is remarkable for its coloration, which 
is quite different from that of the preceding. The legs and feet are thin, 
the birds being small, and the long middle toe is comparative with that of 
Falco. A feature of great interest, however, is the wing formation : the 
first primary, though long, is shorter than in any of the preceding genera 
and is only equal to the fourth ; though the second may be longest, it is only 
subequal with the third, and these noticeably exceed the first and fourth. 
As the wing formation of Falco is almost exactly that of Rhynchodon, and 
Hierofalco differs little, the peculiarities in this direction in the case of 
Tinnunculus merit generic distinction. CercJineis is also well marked by means 
of its coloration, and here we see a variation in quite another direction : the 
wing agrees nearly with that of Tinnunculus, in that the first is even slightly 
shorter than the fourth, the second and third longest, the second sometimes 
surpassing the third. Here, however, though the legs are long, the toes are 
short, and this genus is as well differentiated from Falco (as a matter of fact 
better) as Astur is from Accipiter. Yet in the American 0. U. List, as above 
noted, Cerchneis is only subgenerically differentiated from Falco, while Astur 
is generically separated from Accipiter. From my knowledge of American 
ornithologists and their methods, I conclude this degradation of CercJineis 
is due to an oversight. 
In the British 0. U. List, 2nd Ed., an even more inconsistent classification 
is seen, as not only is Accipiter generically regarded as distinct from Astur, 
but this point has been emphasized (in other places) by the makers of that 
List. Yet Cerchneis is absolutely merged into Falco without reason. In 
this case, I believe that examination of the birds themselves, rather than 
reliance (or otherwise) on literature, would have relieved the List from this 
erroneous grouping. 
It is quite possible that the species vespertinus is responsible for the 
confusion apparent, as this species has the wing formation agreeing almost 
exactly with that of Falco, while the feet are quite like that of Cerchneis. 
A peculiar coloration accompanies these features, which I consider an important 
matter in this Family. 
I would therefore regard the groups mentioned as each worthy of generic 
rank from the superficial study of the skins alone. Is it not remarkable. 
224 
