so DICTION AR V OF BIRDS 



{Goracias) with the Bee-eaters (Merops), and had the sagacity to surmise 

 that Meiiura was not a Gallinaceous Bird. The greatest benefit conferred 

 by this memoir probably is that it stimulated the efforts, presently to be 

 mentioned, of one of his pupils, and that it brought more distinctly into 

 sight that other feature (page ^S), originally discovered by Merrem, of which 

 it now clearly became the duty of systematizers to take cognizance. 



Following the order of time we next have to recur to the labours of 

 Nitzsch, who, in 1820, in a treatise on the Nasal Glands of Birds — a 

 subject that had already attracted the attention of Jacobson (Nouv. Bull. 

 Soc. Philomat. Paris, iii. pp. 267-269)— first put forth in Meckel's Deutsches 

 Archiv fiir die Physiologie (vi. pp. 251-269) a statement of his general 

 views on ornithological classification which were based on a comparative 

 examination of those bodies in various forms. It seems unnecessary here 

 to occupy space by giving an abstract of his plan,i which hardly includes 

 any but European species, because it was subsequently elaborated with no 

 inconsiderable modifications in a way that must presently be mentioned 

 at greater length. But the scheme, crude as it was, possesses some 

 interest. It is not only a key to much of his later work — to nearly all 

 indeed that was published in his lifetime- — but in it are founded several 

 definite groups (for example, Passerinx and Picariee) that subsequent 

 experience has shewn to be more or less natural ; and it further serves 

 as additional evidence of the breadth of his views, and his trust in the 

 teachings of anatomy ; for it is clear that, if organs so apparently 

 insignificant as these nasal glands were found worthy of being taken into 

 account, and capable of forming a base of operations, in drawing up a 

 system, it would almost follow that there can be no part of a Bird's 

 organization that by proper study would not help to supply some means 

 of solving the great question of its affinities. This seems to be one of the 

 most certain general truths in Zoology, and it is probably admitted in 

 theory to be so by most zoologists, but their practice is opposed to it ; for, 

 whatever group of animals be studied, it is found that one set or another 

 of characters is the chief favourite of the authors consulted — each gener- 

 ally taking a separate set, and that to the exclusion of all others, instead 

 of effecting a combination of all the sets and taking the aggregate. ^ 



That Nitzsch took this extended view is abundantly proved by the 

 valuable series of ornithotomical observations which he must have been 

 for some time accumulating, and almost immediately afterwards began to 

 contribute to the younger Naumann's excellent Naturgeschichte der Vogel 

 Deutschlands, already noticed. Beside a concise general treatise on the 

 Organization of Birds to be found in the introduction to that work (i. pp. 



- This plan, having been repeated by Schopss in 1829 {op. cit. xii. p. 73), became 

 known to Owen in 1835, who then drew to it the attention of Kirby [Seventh Bridge- 

 water Treatise, ii. pp. 444, 445), and in the next year referred to it in his own article 

 "Aves" (Todd's Cyclop. Anat. i. p. 226), so that Englishmen need no excuse for not 

 being aware of one of Nitzsch's labours, though his more advanced work of 1829, 

 presently to be mentioned, was not cited by Owen. 



2 A remarkable instance of this may be seen in the Sijstema Avium, promulgated 

 in 1830 by Wagler (a man with great knowledge of Birds) in his Natilrliches System, 

 der Am-phiUen (pp. 77-128). He took the tongue as his chief guide, and found it 

 indeed an i:innily member. 



