■>\. X 

 191 5 



^•1 M.\Tiii;\vs, I'hc Atlitiissioii of Colour-Cicuera. 125 



I agree exactly with the jjieceding remarks, as will be well 

 known to readers of \\\y "Birds of Anstralia " and those who 

 have watched the evolution of my " List of the Birds of Australia." 



I will now give details of the discussion. Mr. W. P. Pycraft 

 had been cited as opposing Dr. Lowe, as it was through a 

 criticism made by him that the evening discussion was initiated. 

 However, he at once repudiated his writings by stating, " In the 

 main I agree with Dr. Lowe," and confirmed this with the fol- 

 lowing admission : — " A little time ago I had occasion to write 

 part of a book on British birds, and 1 had to write hurriedly. As 

 a consequence, in the concluding chapters, wherein I summed 

 up my remarks on classification, I find I did not express 

 myself at sufficient length to carry exactly the meaning I had 

 intended to convey. I stated there that it was impossible, 

 without juggling with facts, to recognize the genus Mgialilis, 

 which should be included in the genus Charadrius, and, further, 

 that colour was a factor which must be ignored when forming 

 genera, if classification was to be framed on sound scientific lines." 

 He followed up his conversion with the further illuminating 

 remarks : — " I certainly agree that coloration is an extremely 

 important factor in classification, and one that has been far too 

 much neglected." Of course, this contradiction of his former 

 written attitude practically annulled all discussion, as he was 

 supposed to have facts to support his statements, whereas he 

 absolutely abandoned any opposition. He then remarked how 

 the changes from winter to summer plumage and the differences 

 between male and female complicated the usage of colour, at once 

 showing that he had not grasped Dr. Lowe's distinction between 

 mere coloration and colour-pattern. 



Mr. Pycraft also confirmed Dr. Lowe's essay by stating : — 

 "If .... our classification is to express the genetic 

 relationship between different groups, then we have to follow 

 sometimes colour, sometimes some other character." His remarks 

 about coloration throughout showed that he altogether confused 

 coloration and colour-pattern, and. in view of his frank admission 

 that his statement that colour must be ignored in the formation 

 of genera was absolutely wrong, little notice may be taken of 

 his further statements. He said, later, that " More interest must 

 be taken in the deeper characters ; first of all must come the 

 skeleton, as being perhaps the most tangible part you can get. 

 The characters furnished by this should form the basis of the 

 larger groups and families, and the generic groups should rest on 

 the same Ijasis. . . . All the earlier naturalists placed the 

 Owls with the Birds of Prey. But an investigation into their 

 anatomy has shown that the Owls have nothing whatever to do 

 with the Birds of Prey." 



Pycraft himself wrote (Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1902, pp. ), 4) 

 — " On osteological evidence alone, however, it is doubtful whether 

 the Striges would ever have bsen separated from the Accipitres." 

 Consequently, the skeleton is not such a sure guide as is suggested 



