( 38 ) 



THE BREHM COLLECTION. 



INTRODUCTION. 

 By EENST HARTERT. 



ORNITHOLOGICAL studies begau in Europe, and niitil ipiite recently the 

 majority of ornitbologists were Europeans. No wonder, therefore, that the 

 ornithology of Europe has been studied very much. Numerous are the works 

 treating of European birds, and we may be proud of many a great work, proud 

 indeed of Dresser's Birds of Europe, proud of works like Naumann's, Macgillivray's, 

 and of books of Sharpe, Secbohm, Newton, and numerous other authors. But, 

 while in America the study of subspecies has advanced very far, the majority of 

 the authors on European birds used to study only the species, neglecting the 

 interesting local forms "because they did not deserve specihc rank." However, 

 long ago there was a country clergyman in the small village of Renthendorf, in 

 the Thuringian mountains, in Germany, who, I believe, made the first general 

 attempt to recognise and to distinguish more than what we may call the broad 

 basis of onr work — i.e. the so-called " good species." I need hardly say that the 

 man was Christian Ludwig Brehm, and that his attempts were not very fortunate 

 nor successful. The reason for the latter fact was that " father Brehm," as he 

 is called in Germany, shot far over the mark. He stood evidently alone in his 

 experience and ability of noticing the " slightest " differences between the various 

 individuals, and almost alone in making and naming finer divisions than what 

 others recognised as valid species. Unfortunately his very isolation — both in the 

 manner of his studies and in his dominion, long before the time of railways — 

 caused him to go on unchecked in his own line. It must also not be forgotten 

 that he had no ornithological journals in which to publish at convenient length 

 accurate descriptions ; and often, as in his notorious " Vogelfang," he tried to cram 

 systematic matter in a most abbreviated form into a popular work. The neglect 

 of Brehm's work has been a fault of the majority of European ornithologists, and 

 connected with it has been the neglect of the study of subspecific forms. These 

 neglects, however, were very excusable, because C. L. Brehm, going, as he doubtless 

 did, too fiir, frightened other ornithologists out of his own footsteps. It became, 

 indeed, difficult to name any subspecies, with so many names of C L. Brehm in 

 print, and, unfortunately, often insufiiciently described. Our American brethren 

 had a better chance, for in America there was no prejudice against subspecies, 

 and wherever they studied local forms they found uncultivated ground, and much 

 open field for satisfactory original research. As it is, however, C. L. Brehm's 

 names cannot be neglected if European ornithology is studied from a modern 

 standpoint — /./■. with a view towards discriminating the local forms. They must 

 be critically examined and troubled about a good deal, like Linnaeus' names, if 

 species and subspecies are to be correctly named. 



