126 Mathews, The Admission oj Colour-Genera. l^^ "J^^^ 



in the above remarks. While it is impossil)le to utilize skeletal 

 characters as of generic value as a general rule, in some cases 

 genera show differences in the skeleton. In the majority of cases, 

 however, no tangible difference can be seen in the skeletons of 

 admitted closely- allied genera, while in the Passerine groups even 

 families are not well individualized as regards the skeleton. 



The Hon. W. L. (now Lord) Rothschild began : — " Personally, 

 I am not entirely in sympathy with either Dr. Lowe or Mr. 

 Pycraft. However, if I may be permitted to say so, I cannot 

 agree that the question of genera is of such importance from the 

 point of view of ornithology as many of us would make out. I 

 quite admit that species as we see them to-day are the work of 

 evolution and of Nature, but the idea of genera is a purely human 

 invention. . . . The classification ought to be carried out. 

 as far as possible, on phylogenetic and evolutionary lines, as 

 suggested by Mr. Pycraft, but I think genera ought to be sub- 

 ordinated to usefulness. 



Herein are well expressed the views of a clever ornithologist, 

 who has never studied higher classification, because, if species 

 are the work of Nature, all the highei groups must be, and genera 

 must be more than, a " purely human invention." If this were 

 admitted, why should not colour be more commonly used, as 

 colour-genera would be easily manipulated if they were simply 

 constituted by means of colour without reference to form. If 

 classification is to be carried out on phylogenetic lines, how can 

 genera be best gauged as to their usefulness ? Simply by the 

 way they show phylogenetic alhances, and this is admitted to be 

 governed in many cases by colour-pattern. 



Mr. Ogilvie-Grant confirmed this view by his remarks : — 

 " Genera, as we all know, are purely arbitrary divisions, which 

 we use in grouping together allied species and sub-species, so 

 that we may be able to deal with them more conveniently in 

 classification. . . . Genera do not exist in Nature. . . . 

 The deeper-seated characters should be reserved for the differentia- 

 tion of families and sub-families, not genera, and should be used 

 to link up and associate the latter in a natural manner. In this 

 respect I think Mr. Pycraft has somewhat confused the issue." 

 Though he dehberately stated that " geneia do not exist in 

 Nature," he argued that " Linnets and Goldfinches appear to me 

 to be clearly-defined and natural genera" — two remarks clearly 

 showing the confusion in his mind as to what were genera. His 

 method may be gauged by his statement — " The more experience 

 we have in dealing with the class Aves generally the better we 

 shall be able to decide instinctively what constitutes a genus." 

 The itahcs are mine. I do not think " instinct " can be resorted 

 to for classification, notwithstanding the high authority of Mr. 

 Ogilvie-Grant. 



Mr. W. L. Sclater's views were of most value, as they really 

 cover all that can be said save the idea that genera are purely 

 artificial. Thus : — " I think genera are ^ matter of convenience 



