INTRODUCTION 65 



to describe, in each of the four genera examined by him — Struthio, Rhea, 

 Dromxus and Casuarius} It is significant that notwithstanding this he 

 did not figure the pterylosis of any one of them, and the thought suggests 

 itself that, though his editor assures us he had convinced himself that 

 the group must be here shoved in (eingeschoben), the intrusion is rather 

 diae to the necessity vi^hich Nitzsch, in common with most men of his 

 time (the Quinarians excepted), felt for deploying the whole series of 

 Birds into line, in which case the proceeding may be defensible on the 

 score of convenience. The extraordinary merits of this book, and the 

 admirable fidelity to his principles which Burmeister shewed in the 

 difficult task of editing it, were unfortunately overlooked for many years, 

 and perhaps are not sufficiently recognized now. Even in Germany, the 

 author's own country, there were few to notice seriously what is certainly 

 one of the most remarkable works ever published on the science, much 

 less to pursue the investigations that had been so laboriously begun. ^ 

 Andreas Wagner, in his report on the progress of Ornithology {Arch. f. 

 Naturgesch. vii. 2, pp. 60, 61), as might be expected from such a man as 

 he was, placed the Pterylographie at the summit of those iiubldcations the 

 appearance of which he had to record for the years 1839 and 1840, 

 stating that for " Systematik " it was of the greatest importance. On the 

 other hand Oken (Isis, 1842, pp. 391-394), though giving a summary of 

 Nitzsch's results and classification, was more sparing of his praise, and 

 prefaced his remarks by asserting that he could not refrain from laughter 

 when he looked at the plates in Nitzsch's work, since they reminded him 

 of the plucked fowls in a poulterer's shop — it might as well be urged as 

 an objection to the plates in many an anatomical book that they called 

 to mind a butcher's — and goes on to say that, as the author always had the 

 luck to engage in researches of which nobody thought, so had he the luck 

 to print them where nobody sought them. In Sweden Sundevall, with- 

 out accepting Nitzsch's views, accorded them a far more appreciative 

 greeting in his annual reports for 1840-42 (i. pp. 152-160) ; but of course 

 in England and France ^ nothing was known of them beyond the scantiest 

 notice, generally taken at second hand, in two or three publications.* 



^ He does not mention Apteryx, at that time so little known on the Continent. 



^ Some excuse is to be made for this neglect. Nitzsch had of course exhausted 

 all the forms of Birds commonly to be obtained, and specimens of the less common 

 forms were too valuable from the curator's or collector's point of view to be subjected 

 to a treatment that might end in their destruction. Yet it is said, on good authority, 

 that Nitzsch had the patience so to manipulate the skins of many rare species that 

 he was able to ascertain the characters of tlieir pterylosis by the inspection of their 

 inside only, without in any way damaging them for the ordinary purpose of a 

 museum. Nor is this surprising when we consider the marvellous skill of Continental 

 and especially German taxidermists, many of whom have elevated their profession to 

 a height of art inconceivable to most Englishmen, who are only acquainted with the 

 miserable mockery of Nature which is the most sublime result of all but a few " bird- 

 stuffers." 



^ In 1836 Jacquemin communicated to the French Academy {Comptes Rendus, 

 ii. pp. 374, 375 and 472) some observations on the order in which feathers are 

 disposed on the body of Birds ; but, however general may have been the scope of his 

 investigations, the portion of them published refers only to the Crow, and there is no 

 mention made of Nitzsch's former work. 



* Thanks to Mr. Sclater, the Bay Society was induced to publish, in 1867. an 



