32 



ORNITHOLOGY 



Blanchard's investigations, if completed, wouUl obviously have 

 taken extraordinarily high rank among the highest contributions 

 to ornithology. As it is, so much of them as we have are of con- 

 siderable importance ; for, in this unfortunately unfinished memoir, 



he describes in si i detail the several differences which the sternum 



in a great many different groups of his Tropidosternii presents, and 

 to some extent makes a methodical disposition of them accordingly. 

 Thus he separates the Birds-of-Prey into three great groups— (1) 

 the ordinary Diurnal forms, including the Falamiilic and I'nllnriilx 

 of the systematist of his time, but distinguishing the American 

 Vultures from those of the Old World; (2) Gypogeranus, the 

 Secretary-bird (?.«.); and ( 3 ) the 0wls \ in f ra > P- 8S >- Next 

 lie places the Parrots (q.v.), and then the vast assemblage of 

 "Passereaux"— which he declares to be all of one type, even 

 genera like Pipra (Maxakix, vol. xv. p. 455) and Pitta— and con- 

 cludes with the somewhat heterogeneous conglomeration of forms, 

 beginning with Oypselus (Swift, q.v.), that so many systematists 

 have been accustomed to call Picariss, though to them as a group 

 he assigns no name. A continuation of the treatise was promised 

 in a succeeding part of the Annates, but a quarter of a century has 

 passed without its appearance. 1 



Important as are the characters afforded by the sternum, that 

 bone even with the whole sternal apparatus should obviously not be 

 considered alone. To aid ornithologists in their studies in this 

 Eyton. respect, Etton, who for many years had been forming a collection 

 of Birds' skeletons, began the publication of a series of plates repre- 

 senting them. The first part of this work, Ostcologia Avium, 

 appeared early in 1859, and a volume was completed in 1867. A 

 Supplement was issued in 1SR9, and a Second Supplement, in three 

 parts, between 1S73 and 1875. The whole work contains a great 

 number of figures of Birds' skeletons and detached bones ; but 

 they are not so drawn as to be of much practical use, and the 

 accompanying letter-press is too brief to be satisfactory. 



That the eggs laid by Birds should offer to some extent characters 

 of utility to systematists is only to be expected, when it is con- 

 sidered that those from the same nest generally bear an extraordin- 

 ary familydikeness to one another, and also that in certain groups 

 the essential peculiarities of the egg-shell are constantly and dis- 

 tinctively characteristic. Thus no one who has ever examined the 

 egg of a Duck or of a Tinamou would ever be in danger of not 

 referring another Tinamou's egg or another Duck's, that he might 

 see, to its proper Family, and so on with many others. Yet, as 

 has been stated on a former occasion (Birds, vol. iii. p. 772), the 

 expectation held out to oologists, and by them, of the benefits to 

 be conferred upon Systematic Ornithology from the study of Birds' 

 eggs, so far from being fulfilled, has not unfrequently led to dis- 

 appointment. But at the same time many of the shortcomings of 

 Oology in this respect must be set down to the defective informa- 

 tion and observation of its votaries, among whom some have been 

 very lax, not to say incautious, in not ascertaining on due evidence 

 the parentage of their specimens, and the author next to be named 

 is open to this charge. After several minor notices that appeared 

 Des in journals at various times, Des Mtjrs in 1860 brought out at 



Murs. Paris his ambitious Traiti general d' Oologie Ornithologique an •point 

 it, ray <!<■ la. Classification, which contains (pp. 529-538) a " Systema 

 Oologicum " as the final result of his labours. In this scheme 

 Birds are arranged according to what the author considered to be 

 their natural method and sequence ; but the result exhibits some 

 unions as ill-assorted as can well be met with in the whole range 

 uf tentative arrangements of the Class, together with some very 

 unjustifiable divorces. Its basis is the classification of Cuvier, the 

 modifications of which by Des Murs will seldom commend them- 

 selves to systematists whose opinion is generally deemed worth 

 having. Few, if any, of the faults of that classification are removed, 

 and the improvements suggested, if not established by his successors, 

 those especially of other countries than France, are ignored, or, as 

 is the case with some of those of L'Herminier, are only cited to 

 be set aside. Oologists have no reason to be thankful to Des Murs, 

 notwithstanding his zeal in behalf of their study. It is perfectly 

 true that in several or even in many instances he acknowledges and 

 deplores the poverty of his information, but this does not excuse 

 him for making assertions (and such assertions are not unfrequent) 

 based on evidence that is either wholly untrustworthy or needs 

 further inquiry before it can be accepted (Ibis, 1860, pp. 331-335). 

 This being the case, it would seem useless to take up further space 

 by analysing the several proposed modifications of Cuvicr's arrange- 

 ment. The great merit of the work is that the author shews the 

 necessity of taking Oology into account when investigating the 

 classification of Birds; but it also proves that in so doing the 

 paramount consideration lies in the thorough sifting of evidence as 

 to the parentage of the eggs which are to serve as the building 

 stones of the fabric to be erected. The attempt of lies Murs was 



1 M. Blanchard's animadversions mi the employment of external 

 characters, and on trusting to observations on the habits of Birds, 

 called forth a rejoinder from Mr Wallace (Ibis, 1864, pp. 36-41), who 

 successfully shewed that they are not altogether to be despised. 



praiseworthy ; but in effect it has utterly failed, notwithstanding 

 tie' encomiums passed upon it by friendly critics (Rev. de Zoologie, 

 1S60, pp. 176-183, 313-325, 370-373). 2 



Until about this time systematists, almost without 

 exception, may lie said to have been wandering with no 

 definite purpose. At least their purpose was indefinite 

 compared with that which they now have before them. 

 No doubt they all agreed in saying that they were pro- 

 secuting a search for what they called the True System of 

 Nature ; but that was nearly the end of their agreement, 

 for in what that True System consisted the opinions of 

 scarcely any two would coincide, unless to own that it was 

 some shadowy idea beyond the present power of mortals 

 to reach or even comprehend. The Quinarians, who boldly 

 asserted that they had fathomed the mystery of Creation, 

 had been shewn to be no wiser than other men, if indeed 

 they had not utterly befooled themselves ; for their theory 

 at best could give no other explanation of things than that 

 they were because they were. The conception of such a 

 process as has now come to be called by the name of 

 Evolution was certainly not novel ; but except to two men 

 the way in which that process was or could be possible had 

 not been revealed. 3 Here there is no need to enter into 

 details of the history of Evolution ; but the annalist in 

 every branch of Biology must record the eventful 1st of 

 July 1858, when the now celebrated views of Darwin and Darwin 

 Jlr Wallace were first laid before the scientific world, 4 and 

 and must also notice the appearance towards the end of the w allace - 

 following year of the former's Origin of Species, which has 

 effected the greatest revolution of human thought in this 

 or perhaps in any century. The majority of biologists 

 who had schooled themselves on other principles were of 

 course slow to embrace the new doctrine ; but their hesita- 

 tion was only the natural consequence of the caution which 

 their scientific training enjoined. A few there were who 

 felt as though scales had suddenly dropped from their 

 eyes, when greeted by the idea conveyed in the now 

 familiar phrase "Natural Selection"; but even those who 

 had hitherto believed, and still continued to believe, in the 

 sanctity of " Species " at once perceived that their life-long 

 study had undergone a change, that their old position was 

 seriously threatened by a perilous siege, and that to make 

 it good they must find new means of defence. Many 

 bravely maintained their posts, and for them not a word 

 of blame ought to be expressed. Some few pretended, 

 though the contrary was notorious, that they had always 

 been on the side of the new philosophy, so far as they 

 allowed it to be philosophy at all, and for them hardly a 

 word of blame is too severe. Others after due deliberation, 

 as became men who honestly desired the truth and nothing 

 but the truth, yielded wholly or almost wholly to argu- 

 ments which they gradually found to be irresistible. But, 

 leaving generalities apart, and restricting ourselves to what 

 is here our proper business, there was possibly no branch 

 of Zoology in which so many of the best informed and con- 

 sequently the most advanced of its workers sooner accepted 

 the principles of Evolution than Ornithology, and of course 

 the effect upon its study was very marked. New spirit was 

 given to it. Ornithologists now felt they had something 

 before them that was really worth investigating. Ques- 

 tions of Affinity, and the details of Geographical Distribu- 

 tion, were endowed with a real interest, in comparison with 



- In this historical sketch of the progress of Ornithology it has not 

 been thought necessary to mention other oological works, since they 

 have not a taxonomic bearing, and the chief of them have been already 

 named (Birds, vol. iii. p. 774, note 1). 



3 Neither Lamarck nor Robert Chambers (the now acknowledged 

 author of Vestiges of Creation), though thorough evolutionists, 

 rationally indicated any means whereby, to use the old phrase, "the 

 transmutation of species" could be effected. 



4 Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, vol. iii., 

 Zoology, pp. 45-C2. 



