156 



THE OSPKEY. 



THE OSPREY. 



An Illustrated Magazine of Popular Ornithology. 



Published Monthly, 



By 



THE OSPREY COMPANY. 



Edited by Theodore Gill and Paul IJartsch, in collabo- 

 ration with Robert Ridgway, LeonhardSiejoeger. Frederic 

 A. Lucas, Charles VV. Richmond. William Palmer and 

 Harry C. Oberholser of Washington, and Witmer Stone of 

 Philadelphia. 



Contributions of a relevant nature are respectfully soli- 

 cited, and should be addressed to The Osphey Company- 

 341-323 4}$ Street N. W., Washington. D. C. 



Subscription : In the United States. Canada and Mexico, 

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



Foreign Subscription: One Doll araud Twenty-five Cents, 

 Postage paid to all countries in the Postal Union. 

 Advertising rates sent on request. 



Entered as second-class matter, by The Osphey Com- 

 pany at the Washington. D. C, Post Office. 



OCTOBER. 1' 01. 



No. 10. 



Comments. 



THE VICE OF EXCESSIVE GENERALIZATION. 



The monograph of the Osprey was finished 

 in the last number of the journal named for it. 

 The author had noticed discrepancies in the ac- 

 counts of the bird given by different writers, 

 and it was to ascertain to what extent such dis- 

 crepancies range that the monograph was un- 

 dertaken. The discrepancies are not excep- 

 tional except perhaps as to number. The best 

 biographies of birds, concerning which much 

 has been written, differ more or less from each 

 other in important points. In the case of the 

 Osprey, these differences extend to almost all 

 points of the economy; as to whether they con- 

 gregate in one place or not in Europe (p. 27); 

 as to disposition, whether it is peaceable or not 

 (.see p. 27); as to whether they will take dead 

 fish or not (p. 42); as to time of taking meals (p. 

 41); as to food, whether they depend entirely 

 on fish or resort to other quarry (p. 60); as to 

 whether they will attack poultry or not (p. 60) 



as to what they will do after a meal (p. 60); as 

 to whether they will pair for life or for a season 

 only (p. 60); as to place of nesting- (p. 73); as to 

 composition of nest p. 76). 



These are only some of the matters of detail 

 respecting which there has been difference of 

 opinion. One author has positively asserted a 

 certain proposition; another, one directly in 

 opposition. The fault is in the assumption that 

 what is true for one is true for all the represen- 

 tatives of a species. No allowance is made for 

 deviatious of individuals from the customary 

 habits of the species. Nevertheless, such devia- 

 tions may result from volition or simple whim 

 as well as from the stress of circumstances. We 

 may be assured, for example, that a bird would 

 rather eat than starve, and if an Osprey cannot 

 get a fish, he will get a reptile or a frog, if one 

 comes in the way, rather than lose a meal 

 altogether or starve. He may even take another 

 bird — if he can. Sufficient consideration is not 

 given to effects of environment and conditions 

 when our observers strenously dispute the alle- 

 gation of some one who has observed or, let us 

 say, claims to have observed something that 

 another has not. It is a vice of over-generaliza- 

 tion and of excessive belief in the uniformity 

 and constancy of nature. 



The sportsman — the hunter after game birds 

 and mammals — is more prone to such dogmatism 

 than the professional naturalist. The periodi- 

 cals devoted to sports of the woods and fields 

 are full of controversies respecting the habits 

 of game animals and the assertion of some one 

 respecting- a peculiarity he has observed is dis- 

 puted bv- another because a characteristic of the 

 like kind has not been noticed by himself. 

 After all. however, we ought not to blame the 

 disputant too much, for a spirit of skepticism 

 and criticism is really not only useful, but in- 

 dispensable. But the objection to a given state- 

 ment should not be too positive unless there is 

 the best reason, not only within the experience 

 of the objector but in that of many others, for 

 believing that the statement in question cannot 

 be true and may result from deliberate falsifica- 

 tion or error of observation. In fine, skepticism 

 is a good quality but should not be carried to an 

 extreme. The representatives of a given species 

 of animal agree in most respects and generali- 

 zation is quite permissible. At the same time, 

 there is not only individuality among birds and 

 other animals, but exceptional conditions may 

 result in the manifestation, by an animal, of a 

 peculiarity very different from its normal habit. 



