56 
RED-BREASTED SNIPE. 
The Rusticola of Vieillot, which we adopt as a subgenus for the 
Woodcocks, is distinguished, and even from most water birds, by 
the want of nudity of the tibia, which is completely covered with 
feathers as in land birds. It contains but the two species alluded 
to, that are closely allied, though they have specific traits that 
might constitute genera in other cases. This shows the difficulty 
in our science of knowing where to seek for generic and specific 
traits in the different groups. The two species of Woodcocks 
vary greatly in their respective habits, one being a summer, the 
other a winter visitant in temperate climates, and one of course 
retiring south, the other northward from them. Some authors 
prefer for this group the name of Scolopax, because it is to its type 
that the Greeks gave this name. 
Our subgenus Scolopax, of which we have published a mono¬ 
graph in our Observations on the second edition of Cuvier’s 
Animal Kingdom, is composed of nine or ten species, all of which, 
with theii characteristic details, will be carefully figured in our 
inedited work “ Lithographic Monography of obscure genera of 
Aquatic Birds.” In these the tail-feathers furnish the specific 
characters. The number, shape, and disposition of these afford a 
sure clue, as in Numenius it is the rump, under wing-coverts, and 
long axillary feathers which are our best guide to a knowledge of 
the species. Without this clue they cannot well be distinguished, 
and those who undertake to make phrases with this object in a 
group to which they have not the clue, will only make pedantic 
nonsense, as is done every day. This very natural group is 
called Telmatias by Boie, and Gallinago by the English. 
As for Macroramphus , as we have observed, it forms the tran¬ 
sition to Totanus, which would be enough to show the impropriety 
of Boie s course in considering the genus Scolopax as a family of 
itself. Temminck’s name of Becassine Chevalier is peculiarly 
descriptive, and alone contradicts his unjust censure of Dr. Leach’s 
