THE OSPREY. 



9 



THE OSPREY. 



All Illustrated Maj^a/.iae of Popular Urnithology 



Published Mouthly, 

 By the 



OSPREY PUBLISHING COMPANY. 



Contributions of a relevant nature are respectfully soli- 

 cited, and should be addressed to The Osprey Company, 

 3-21-.3-23 4J4 Street N. W.. Washington. D. C. 



Subscription : In the United States. Canada and Mexico, 

 One Dollar a year, in advance. Single Copies. Ten Cents. 



Foreign Subscription: One Dollar aad Twenty-five Cents. 

 Postage paid to all countries in the Postal Union. 

 Advertising rates sent on request. 



Entered as second-class matter, by the The Osprey 

 Publishing Company at the Washington. D. C. Post Office. 



Vol. IV. 



SEPTEMBER. 1890. 



No. 1. 



Editorials. 



Cniticism and Egg-Coij,kctinCt. 



In the May luimber of the Ospkey two letters 

 transcending' the bounds of legitimate criticism 

 or repl}'^ were admitted bj- the editor then in 

 charg-e. These letters were evoked by the Rev. 

 W. F. Henninger's article entitled "The Scourge 

 of Egg-collecting" in a former number of the 

 Ospkb;v. Possibly Mr. Hennin.ger may have 

 been too specific in his charg^es against eg'g- 

 collectors, but certainly not enoug-h to call for 

 the personal abuse which appeared later. 



We have admitted a reph^ from Mr. Hen- 

 ninger in the present number because we think 

 he had reason to complain of the assaults upon 

 his character, and because the former editor had 

 promised him the opportunity to answer. We 

 have also admitted a letter from Dr. F. H. 

 Knowlton on the same subject. 



The subject primarily under discussion — egg- 

 collecting — is one respecting which differences of 

 opinion are quite nattiral. When one of the 

 parties loses his temper, however, and simply in- 

 dulges in vituperation, an unprejudiced reader 

 may entertain the opinion that he recognizes 

 that he has the worst of the argument, and is 

 simply beclouding the case to direct attention 

 from the true issue involved. The case is thus 

 unduly weakened. 



Egg-collecting- in moderation is not only jus- 

 tifiable, but may be laudable in one who becomes 

 interested in the studj^ of birds. Nor is it inju- 

 rious to the birds themselves if only one or two 

 eggs are taken from the nest of a multiparous 



species. Indeed, it may be imagined even that 

 the pleasure of what Gilbert White was wont to 

 call the s /or li-c—that is, parental instinct— of the 

 parents may thus be prolonged and the pleasure 

 of their lives thereby increased. When however, 

 the mania for collecting or the cupidity which 

 may be at the bottom of it is manifested bA- 

 robbing the birds right and left, it is carried to 

 an unjustifiable extreme. It is to be remarked, 

 also, that none of the inordinate egg-collectors 

 have justified their excessive indulg-ence by their 

 work. Who of them has made known any 

 facts derived from the over-extensive collec- 

 tions? 



There are. nevertheless, man}- facts to be 

 made known, but some of the facts must be a.s- 

 certained by sacrificing the shells! 



Desik.\bii.itv of Extension of Study of 

 Eggs. 



We cannot but be surprised at the want of at- 

 tention to the contents of the egg- in all the 

 works on the eg-gs of birds published, not only 

 in this country but in Europe. The real case in 

 oolog-y would be paralleled by a work on orni- 

 tholog-y in which exclusive attention was paid to 

 the .skin or exterior, and the anatomy untouched. 

 Yet a wide and fruitful field for investigation is 

 offered by the interior of the eg-g. Chemico-phy- 

 sical researches would probably lead to a classi- 

 fication which would aid the sj-stematist in the 

 arrangement of the class at large, and either 

 confirm other data or indicate the necessity or 

 at least advisability of reconsidering a mooted 

 question of taxonomy. Nearly half a century 

 ago, before any zoologist had appreciated the 

 radical distinction of the classes of reptiles and 

 amphibians — when in fact most regarded them 

 as constituents of a single homogeneous class — 

 two French savants recognized the differences 

 between the eggs of the two and that those dif- 

 ferences tended in opposite directions — one to 

 the birds and the other to the fishes. Now, it 

 is generally conceded by scientific zoologists 

 that the birds are almost inseparable from the 

 reptiles while the amphibians are very closeU- 

 related to the crossopterygian and dipoan 

 fishes and to the selachians. This recognition 

 is the result primarih' of the consideration of 

 the morphology' of the respective animals. But 

 long before this recognition was attained (in 

 1854) Valenciennes and Fremy reached similar 

 conclusions from a studj' of the chemical and 

 physical composition of eggs. 



They annottnced, as the second of the ''con- 

 clusions" to which their studies had led. the 



