332 Review o/M. O. Des Murs^ 'Oologie Ornitliologique/ 



is not a matter of tlie highest improbability ? We are willing to 

 concede that the majority of our author's statements are well- 

 grounded, that in most cases he has formed his opinions from 

 specimens which are genuine ; but a chain of evidence is no 

 stronger than its weakest part, and if we find a flaw in even a 

 few of the links, can we place confidence in all the remainder 

 without being able to test them ? Whatever may be the value 

 finally attached to oological characters, we are ready to assert it 

 again and again, that they can be safely used in a matter of 

 science only when the specimens from which they are drawn are 

 completely free from doubt, through the care taken hy the collector 

 to identify and authenticate them. 



It is but justice to M. Des Murs to state, that he is perfectly 

 free from any disposition to veil the present imperfect state of 

 oological knowledge. Indeed, with a frankness most fair and 

 most commendable, he avows time after time his unavoidable 

 ignorance of the eggs of many most important forms. The 

 attentive reader of his work will soon perceive how wide a field 

 remains still for future investigators. Nothing whatever seems 

 to be known of the oology of whole groups, such as Neomorpha, 

 the Paradiseidce, and other interesting birds. The progress of 

 the study, taken up as it now is by so many accurate observers, 

 and pursued by them with so much zeal, will doubtless necessi- 

 tate a certain amount of modification in our author's classified 

 arrangement. In fact, from this very cause, we find him obliged 

 to publish, under the date of the present year, a revised ' Systema 

 Oologicum' (p. 529), diflering in some degree from, and in many 

 respects superior to, that printed only a few months pi'eviously 

 (p. 195). In this scheme, by judicious typographical arrange- 

 ment, it can be seen at a glance what are the chief innovations 

 he has deemed it advisable to make in the arrangement of former 

 systematists. To enumerate them would be to extend the limits 

 of this article far too much ; they consist rather in the grouping 

 and order than in introducing new divisions, though instances of 

 the latter kind of alterations are not wanting. We must content 

 ourselves with recommending to all who busy themselves with 

 classification, a careful study of his application of oological cha- 

 racters in forming a system, and only remark here upon a very 



