Several sources maintain that the Hebrew word in this verse referred to the type-birds indicated by the rendering in Wycliffes or the Geneva Bible instead of the rendering in the KJV. At its entry cuckoo, Smiths Bible Dictionary noted: There does not appear to be any authority for this translation of the A. V. (p. 179). The Illustrated Dictionary of the Bible maintained that there is no obvious reason why the cuckoo would be considered an unclean bird (Lev. 11:16, Deut. 14:15) (p. 53). In their commentary, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown suggested at the cuckoo: Evidently some other bird is meant by the original term, from its being ranged among rapacious birds (I, p. 80). Cansdale asserted: Cuckoos cannot be identified in the scriptures, the word shachaph of Leviticus 11:16 being more probably translated sea-gull (All the Animals, p. 188 ). Samuel Clark wrote: There seems to be nothing to favour the claims of the cuckoo. The Greek name denotes a gull, and it is likely that some sea-bird is meant (Cook, Bible Commentary, I, p. 549). Greens Concise Lexicon defined the Hebrew word as sea-gull, a ceremonially unclean bird (p. 230). Youngs Analytical Concordance has the following definition: sea maw, sea gull (p. 214). Gensenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon noted that according to LXX and Vulgate larus, gull, an aquatic bird so-called from its leanness (p. 815). Ellicotts Commentary maintained that the Hebrew word literally means the thin, slender, or cadaverous bird, and is taken by the ancient authorities to denote the sea-gull, which is the raven of the sea (I, p. 379). Ungers Bible Dictionary suggested that the Hebrew word is probably generic for [any] bird of the sea gull family (p. 57). The 1855 Union Bible Dictionary observed that the prevailing opinion is, that it was what we call, the sea-mew or gull (p. 188 ). The 1905 Magils Linear School Bible and the 1917 Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text by Jews have the same rendering as the Geneva.