316 
ON TUB CLASSIFICATION OF BIRDS. 
however, to several of the birds that have been placed 
in this particular group, we apprehend very few really 
belong to it. \Fe have seen tlie errors that have re- 
sulted from classing these birds from mere descriptions 
and figures, and even from describing them before their 
distinguishing characters have been rightly understood ; 
and we shall not, therefore, give a fictitious degree of 
perfection to our arrangement of this family by attempt- 
ing to refer such little-known species to those groups 
to which, as we conjecture, they more naturally belong. 
1 here is one, however, the Buteo borealis, whose affinity 
to the subgenus Aster has already been intimateil*, and 
which we now venture to remove from the buzzards. 
There is, it is true, a very strong general similarity 
between this bird and the Buteo vulgaris (^fig. 1 09.) • 
but the bill of borealis {fig. 1 1 0 . 6) ishigher, more abruptly 
curved, and altogether partakes of the general structure 
of the accipitrine circle, while the well defined lobe in the 
middle of the upper mandible brings it, in our opinion, 
close to the Aster palumbarius. If such a bird, in short, 
is admitted into the genus Buteo, we really are totally at 
a loss in what manner to define either that group or 
Aster. B. borealis, moreover, like the majority of the 
asturine group, has the hinder toe and claw of nearly 
equal length with the inner; whereas the most universal 
character of the buzzards is to have the hinder toe de- 
cidedly the shortest. That most beautiful species, the 
• Northern Zoology, ii. 9. 
