NOVITATES ZOOLOGICAE XXV. 1918. 6 



manner he would treat all birds in future. It is of great interest to read in full 

 what Brehm said in Naumannia, vi. 1856, pp. 276, 277. Brehm's short remarks 

 there are much clearer than the long-winded speech of Gloger. On the other 

 hand, Brehm's subspecies were not the subspecies of modern ornithologists, 

 which are geographical forms ; his subspecies were partially geographical 

 representatives, but mostly variations wliich hved together in the same areas ; 

 he had the idea that in the neighbourhood of Renthendorf alone almost every 

 species consisted of several subspecies (formerly he called them " Gattungen," 

 " well sie sich gatten ") the individuals of which paired with each otlier, not 

 with those of other subspecies. In this way he studied all individual aberra- 

 tions to a nicety, but his views have proved untenable. He saw better and 

 studied more carefully the individual peculiarities of Central European birds 

 than modern ornithologists, but his interpretation of these peculiarities was 

 absolutely wrong. In many cases his supposed different forms were merely 

 the result of a fleeting first impression. That he was not as sure about them 

 as one is led to beheve from liis books, is clearly shown by his collection, in 

 which the names on labels are frequently altered, sometimes two or three times 

 over. In tliis Ues another difficulty in making out his types. In some cases 

 specimens undoubtedly proved to be the types, where they were avowed single 

 specimens with locality and date stated in print, though the name under which 

 they were described does not appear on the label. 



The specimens in the Brehm Collection date from 1808, when he was twenty- 

 one years old, till 1864 ; the last specimen is dated, label written by his own 

 hand, 2.1.1864, and he died on June 23rd of the same year. One bird 

 is even dated December 30th, 1864, skinned and labelled by old Brehm himself 

 — clearly he mistook the year, thinking of the coming one and thus putting 

 a date on the label which was twelve months ahead. 



Most of the labels are of durable, good paper, and the writing is wonder- 

 fully black and clear, apparently written with ink which he made himself from 

 the galls of oak-leaves ; many others, however, are written with bad ink, some 

 damaged, half destroyed, difficult to read. I have therefore, throughout the 

 whole collection written a new label with Indian indeUble ink, and added it 

 to the old original label, which has, of course, never been taken off or tampered 

 with in any way. To take any original label off a bird skin is in my opinion 

 a crime against science. Unfortunately there are still a few ornithologists 

 who have not grasped the importance, I may almost say the sacredness, of the 

 " original label." In olden times Uttle thought was bestowed on it. Brehm 

 himseU relabelled a great part of his collection ; thus it happened that in sonje 

 cases the date or the year does not quite agree with the pubUshed data — appar- 

 ently because a mistake was made in the copying. Some one whose handwriting 

 I have not been able to identify, began to write new labels again after Brehm's 

 death ; he seems to have found the labour rather hard, and copied them only 

 as to the — to him — more important items, i.e. he did not give the date but 

 was content with the month, and he did not, as a rule, add the third " sub- 

 specific " name. Probably he thus treated only the " Nebensammlung," or 

 dupUcates, for, unfortunately, C. L. Brehm's son, Alfred Edmund Brehm, had 

 made a separation, selecting a " Hauptsamm.ung "' of 6,973 specimens, and a 

 " Nebensammlung," which was thought of no importance. This proceeding 

 was, of course, unscientific and is difficult to understand from an author of 



