20 



ORNITHOLOGY 



As for Merrem's partitioning of the inferior groups there 

 is less to be said in its praise as a whole, though credit 

 must be given to his anatomical knowledge for leading 

 him to. the perception of several affinities, as well as 

 differences, that had never before been suggested by 

 superficial systematists. But it must be confessed that 

 (chiefly, no doubt, from paucity of accessible material) he 

 overlooked many points, both of alliance and the opposite, 

 which since his time have gradually come to be admitted. 

 For instance, he seems not to have been aware of the dis- 

 tinction, already shown by Nitzsch (as above mentioned) 

 to exist, between the Swallows and the Swifts ; and, by 

 putting the genus Coracias among his Oscines Tenuirostres 1 

 without any remark, proved that he was not in all respects 

 greatly in advance of his age ; but on the other hand he 

 most righteously judged that some species hitherto referred 

 to the genera Certhia and Upupa required removal to 

 other positions, and it is much to be regretted that the 

 very concise terms in which his decisions were given to the 

 world make it impossible to determine with any degree 

 of certainty the extent of the changes in this respect which 

 he would have introduced. Had Merrem published his 

 scheme on an enlarged scale, it seems likely that he would 

 have obtained for it far more attention, and possibly some 

 portion of acceptance. He had deservedly attained no 

 little reputation as a descriptive anatomist, and his claims 

 to be regarded as a systematic reformer would probably 

 have been admitted in his lifetime. As it was his scheme 

 apparently fell flat, and not until many years had elapsed 

 were its merits at all generally recognized. 



Notice has next to be taken of a Memoir on the 

 Employment of Sternal Characters in establishing Natural 

 De Families among Birds, which was read by Db Blainville 



Blain- before the Academy of Sciences of Paris in 1815, 2 but not 

 ville. published in full for more than five years later (Journal 

 de Physique . . . . et des Arts, xcii. pp. 185-21.">), though an 

 abstract forming part of a Prodrome d'une noun-lie distribu- 

 tion du Rer/ne Animal appeared earlier (op. cit., lxxxiii. pp. 

 252, 253, 258, 259 ; and Bull. Soc. Philomath, de Paris, 

 1816, p. 110). This is a very disappointing performance, 

 since the author observes that, notwithstanding his new 

 classification of Birds is based on a study of the form of 

 the sternal apparatus, yet, because that lies wholly within 

 the body, he is compelled to have recourse to such outward 

 characters as are afforded by the proportion of the limbs 

 and the disposition of the toes — even as had been the 

 practice of most ornithologists before him ! It is evident 

 that the features' of the sternum on which De Blainville 

 chiefly relied were those drawn from its posterior margin, 

 which no very extensive experience of specimens is needed 

 to show are of comparatively slight value; for the number 

 of " echancrures "■ — notches as they have sometimes been 

 called in English — when they exist, goes but a very short 

 way as a guide, and is so variable in some very natural 

 groups as to be even in that short way occasionally mis- 

 leading. 3 There is no appearance of his having at all taken 

 into consideration the far more trustworthy characters 

 furnished by the anterior part of the sternum, as well as 

 by the coracoids and the furcula. Still De Blainville 

 made some advance in a right direction, as for instance by 

 elevating the Parrots 4 and the Pigeons as " Ordres," equal 

 in rank to that of the Birds-of-Prey and some others. 



1 lie also placed the genus Tod/us in the same group, but it must 

 be borne in mind that in his time a great many Birds were referred to 

 that genns which (according to modern ideas) certainly do no1 belong 

 to it, and it may well have been that lie never had the opportunity of 

 examining a specimen of the genus as nowadays restricted. 



2 Not 1812, as has sometimes been stated. 



3 Of. Philos. Transactions, 1869, p. 337, note. 



4 This view of them had been long before taken by Willughby, 

 but abandoned by all later authors. 



According to the testimony of L'Herminier (for whom see 

 later) he divided the " Passereaux" into two sections, the 

 "faux " and the " vrais "; but, while the latter were very 

 correctly defined, the former were most arbitrarily separated 

 from the " Grim/pears." He also split his Grallatores ami 

 Natatores (practically identical with the Grallse ami 

 Anseres of Linnaeus) each into four sections ; but he failed 

 to see — as on his own principles he ought to have seen — 

 that each of these sections was at least equivalent to 

 almost any one of his other " Ordres." He had, however, 

 the courage to act up to his own professions in collocating 

 the Boilers (Coracias) with the Bee-eaters (Merops), and 

 had the sagacity to surmise that Menura was not a 

 Gallinaceous Bird. The greatest benefit conferred by this 

 memoir is probably that it stimulated the efforts, presently 

 to be mentioned, of one of his pupils, and that it brought 

 more distinctly into sight that other factor, originally dis- 

 covered by Merrem, of which it now clearly became the 

 duty of systematizers to take cognizance. 



Following the chronological order we are here adopting, 

 we next have to recur to the labours of Nitzsch, who, in 

 1820, in a treatise on the Nasal Glands of Birds — a 

 subject that had already attracted the attention of 

 Jacobson (Nouv. Bull. Soc. Philomath, de Paris, iii. pp. Jacob- 

 267-269)— first put forth in Meckel's Deutsehes Archiv^n. 

 fiir die Physiologie (vi. pp. 251-269) a statement of his 

 general views on ornithological classification which were Nitzsch. 

 based on a comparative examination of those bodies in 

 various forms. It seems unnecessary here to occupy space 

 by giving an abstract of his plan, 5 which hardly includes 

 any but European species, because it was subsequently 

 elaborated with no inconsiderable modifications in a way 

 that must presently be mentioned at greater length. But 

 the scheme, crude as it was, possesses some interest. It 

 is not only a key to much of his later work — to nearly all 

 indeed that was published in his lifetime — but in it are 

 founded several definite groups (for example, Passerinx 

 and Picarise) that subsequent experience has shewn to be 

 more or less natural ; and it further serves as additional 

 evidence of the breadth of his views, and his trust in the 

 teachings of anatomy ; for it is clear that, if organs so 

 apparently insignificant as these nasal glands were found 

 worthy of being taken into account, and capable of form- 

 ing a base of operations, in drawing up a system, it would 

 almost follow that there can be no part of a Bird's organiza- 

 tion that by proper study would not help to supply some 

 means of solving the great question of its affinities. This 

 seems to the present writer to be one of the most certain 

 general truths in Zoology, and is probably admitted in 

 theory to be so by most zoologists, but their practice is 

 opposed to it ; for, whatever group of animals be studied, 

 it is found that one set or another of characters is the 

 chief favourite of the authors consulted — each generally 

 taking a separate set, and that to the exclusion of all 

 others, instead of effecting a combination of all the sets 

 and taking the aggregate. 



That Nitzsch took this extended view is abundantly 

 proved by the valuable series of ornithotomical observa- 

 tions which he must have been for some time accumulating, 



5 This plan, having been repeated by Schopss in 1829 (oj>. cit., xii. 

 p. 73), became known to Sir R. Owen in 1835, who then drew to it 

 the attention of Kirby (Seventh liridgewater Treatise, ii. pp. 444, 445), 

 and in the next year referred to it in his own article " Aves " iu Todd's 

 Cycloptedia of Anatomy (i. p. 260), so that Englishmen need no 

 excuse for not being aware of one of Nitzsch's labours, though his 

 more advanced work of 1829, presently to be mentioned, was not 

 referred to by Sir R. Owen. 



6 A very remarkable instance of this may be seen in the Systema 

 Avivm, promulgated in 1830 by Wagler (a man with great knowledge 

 of Birds) in his Naturliches System der Amphibien (pp. 77-128). He 

 took the tongue as his chief guide, and found it indeed an unruly 

 member. 



