The Amount of Science in Oology ^7 



considered to have reached the scientific stage. To be sure, many of our 

 major theories remain to be tested, but it is scientific work that generah'/.es, 

 then tests the theories. 



It is a pleasure to agree with both my critics that many subjects are 

 associated with oology that are of enjoyment and scientific profit. The 

 searching for nests furnishes keen delight and is a most wholesome and re- 

 freshing occupation; but, though it be all this and more, can it be called 

 scientific? If oologists will only recognize that it is not scientific, I will have 

 no disagreement with them. The study of the nesting habits is, in iny 

 opinion, one of the most suggestive lines of ornithological inquiry, for habits 

 and instincts are matters much more complex than any structures, and of 

 fundamental value for understanding the course and factors of evolution. 

 Most vigorously this study should be prosecuted. Here my critics have both 

 missed the point, for my whole argument was directed to show that the col- 

 lecting and preservation of dead egg-shells is the quest that in my opinion 

 has so far proveti to be without scientific value. To put it in other words: 

 whatever observations ornithologists make with regard to habits and acts of 

 intelligence, may well serve as a basis for scientific induction; but the col- 

 lection of dead egg-shells is barren of scientific spirit, and result. Alfred R. 

 Wallace and Lloyd Morgan have opened the inquiry into avian architecture> 

 but I doubt much whether most American oologists arc* acquainted with 

 their writings. — Thomas H. Montgomery, Jr. 



SAW-WHET OWI. 

 tiy A. VV. Honywill. New Haven. Conn.. Marrh 25. 1906 



