^"' ^^ •] yi.wHV.ws. The Adinissiun of Colour-di'iiei-u. 127 



more lluui anything else, and a genus is enliiely a human con- 

 ception, and does not exist in Nature at all : it is purely artiticial. 

 We can probably define a species and a sub-species, but a genus 

 is merely a number of species put together for our own con- 

 venience. As regards Dr. Lowe's views that generic characters 

 should be based on colour-pattern, I must say I agree with him. 

 I think C()l()ur-i)attern is often a very ancient and dee])-seated 

 character, and obviously colour-pattern must be a much more 

 primitive character than the relative lengths of the tarsus and 

 the middle toe, or the relative width and length of the bill. These 

 characters are easily modified by external circumstances, and 

 you cannot regard these characters as more deep-seated than 

 colour-pattern." 



Dr. Hartert stated : — " I did not intend to take i)art in this 

 discussion, but it interests me so much that I cannot help saying 

 a few words. I am very glad, and must express my great satis- 

 faction, that the general trend seems to my own view — i.e., that 

 genera are artificially made by ornithologists, and that Nature 

 does not classify its species into genera. Nature made species 

 and sub-species : genera are made by man for convenience. I 

 agree, on the whole, with Mr. Pycraft, that the more ' deep-seated ' 

 characters should be taken to distinguish genera." He con- 

 tinued by citing examples of similar coloration in different groups 

 as a reason for opposing the usage of colour-pattern, but he so 

 absolutely confused mere coloration with colour-pattern that 

 his citations do not correlate with the facts — i.e., " The weakness 

 of colour-pattern as a generic character is also shown by the 

 different coloration of adult and young in ever so many instances, 

 where we have the young birds quite differently marked from 

 the adults." To any student of evolution it is well known that 

 the young show the primitive coloration and colour-pattern ; 

 that the process of evolution can be seen to some extent by the 

 change from the immature to the adult, and commonly from the 

 adult female to the adult male, which is generally the most highly 

 coloured and ornamented. The fact that adults differ in 

 coloration does not negative the value of colour-pattern, but 

 emphasizes it, as I hope to show later. As Dr. Hartert is 

 strongly opposed to the recognition of colour, while all the 

 previous speakers had admitted it, his satisfaction must be con- 

 fined to the artificiality of genera as above quoted. I, however, 

 can never understand that argument, for, if genera are purely 

 artificial, why argue about the use of coloration in discriminating 

 such ? An artificial classification would surely grasp colour as 

 being a most suitable means of differentiation, and then use 

 structure when the colours became confusing. 



The further speakers at the meeting were all in favour of the 

 usage of colour-pattern, and it was practically a unanimous 

 victory in favour of Dr. Lowe. Those who had ventured to oppose 

 his well-considered essay mostly showed their ignorance of the 

 higher conceptions of the subject. 



