ORNITHOLOGY 



33 



which any interest that had hitherto been taken was a 

 trifling pastime. Classification assumed a wholly different 

 ;i ipect. It had up to this time been little more than the 

 shuffling of cards, the ingenious arrangement of counters in 

 a pretty pattern. Henceforward it was to be the serious 

 study of the workings of Nature in producing the beings we 

 see around us from beings more or less unlike them, that 

 had existed in bygone ages and had been the parents of a 

 varied and varying offspring — our fellow-creatures of to- 

 day. Classification for the first time was something more 

 than tlie expression of a fancy, not that it had not also its 

 imaginative side. Men's minds began to figure to them- 

 selves the original type of some well-marked genus or 

 Family of Birds. They could even discern dimly some 

 generalized stock whence had descended whole groups that 

 now differed strangely in habits and appearance — their 

 discernment aided, may be, by some isolated form which 

 yel retained undeniable traces of a primitive structure. 

 More dimly still visions of what the first Bird may have- 

 been like could be reasonably entertained; and, passing 

 even to a higher antiquity, the Reptilian parent whence 

 all Birds have sprung was brought within reach of man's 

 consciousness. But, relieved as it may be by reflexions of 

 this kind — dreams some may perhaps still call them — the 

 study of Ornithology has unquestionably become harder 

 and more serious ; and a corresponding change in the style 

 of investigation, followed in the works that remain to be 

 considered, will bo immediately perceptible. 



That this was the case is undeniably shewn by some 



Tristram, remarks of Canon Tristram, who, in treating of the 

 Alwudidx and Saxicolinx of Algeria (whence he had 

 recently brought a large collection of specimens of his own 

 making), stated (Ibis, 1859, pp. 429-433) that he could 

 " not help feeling convinced of the truth of the views set 

 forth by Messrs Darwin and Wallace," adding that it was 

 " hardly possible, I should think, to illustrate this theory 

 better than by the Larks and Chats of North Africa." It 

 is unnecessary to continue the quotation ; the few winds 

 just cited are enough to assure to their author the credit 

 of being (so far as is known) the first ornithological 

 specialist who had the courage publicly to recognize and 

 receive the new and at that time unpopular philosophy. 1 

 But greater work was at hand. In June 1S60 Prof. 



Parker. Parker broke, as most will allow, entirely fresh ground, 

 and ground that he has since continued to till more deeply 

 perhaps than any other zoologist, by communicating to 

 the Zoological Society a memoir " On the Osteology of 

 Balxniceps," subsequently published in that Society's Trans- 

 actions (iv. pp. 2G9-351). Of this contribution to science, 

 as of all the rest which have since proceeded from him, 

 may be said in the words he himself has applied (ut 

 supra, p. 271) to the work of another labourer in a not 

 distant field : — " This is a model paper for unbiassed 

 observation, and freedom from that pleasant mode of 

 supposing instead of ascertaining what is the true nature 

 of an anatomical element. " 2 Indeed the study of this 

 memoir, limited though it be in scope, could not fail to 

 convince any one that it proceeded from the mind of one 

 who taught with the authority derived directly from 

 original knowledge, and not from association with the 

 scribes — a conviction that has become strengthened as, in 

 a series of successive memoirs, the stores of more than 

 twenty years' silent observation and unremitting n i irch 



1 Whether Canon Tristram was anticipated in any other, and if so 

 in what, branch of Zoology will be a pleasing inquiry for the historian 

 of the future. 



- It is fair to state that some of Prof. Parker's conclusions respect- 

 ing Bal&niceps were contested by the late Prof. J. T. Bernhardt 

 (Overs. A". D. Vid. Selsk. Forhandlinger, 1861, pp. 135-154; Ibis, 

 IsCrJ, pp. 158-175), and as it seems to the present writer m>l 

 tually. Prof. Parker replied to his critic (Ibis, 1362, pp. 297-299). 



were unfolded, and, more than that, the hidden forces of 

 the science of Morphology were gradually brought to bear 

 upon almost each subject thai came under discussion. 

 These different memoirs, being technically monographs, 

 have strictly no righl to be mentioned in this place; but 

 there is scarcely one of them, if one indeed there lie, that 

 does not deal with the generalities of the study; and the 

 influence they have had upon contemporary investigation 

 is so strong that it is impossible to refrain from noticing 

 them here, though want of space forbids us from enlarging 

 on their contents. 3 Moreover, the doctrine of De cenl 

 with variation is preached in all — seldom, if ever, conspicu- 

 ously, but perhaps all the more effectively on that account. 

 There is no reflective thinker but must perceive that 

 Morphology is the lamp destined to throw more light than 

 that afforded by any other kind of study on the obscurity 

 that still shrouds the genealogy of Birds as of other 

 animals ; and, though as yet its illuminating power is 

 admittedly far from what is desired, it has perhaps uever 

 shone more brightly than in Prof. Parker's hands. 

 The great fault of his series of memoirs, if it may be 

 allowed the present writer to criticize them, is the 

 indifference of their author to formulating his views, so as 

 to enable the ordinary taxonomer to perceive how far he 

 has got, if not to present him with a fair scheme. But 

 this fault is possibly one of those that are " to merit near 

 allied," since it would seem to spring from the author's 

 hesitation to pass from observation to theory, for to theory 

 at present belong, and must for some time belong, all 

 attempts at Classification. Still it is not the less annoying 

 and disappointing to the systematist to find that the, man 

 whose life-long application would enable him, better than 

 any one else, to declare the effect of the alliances and differ- 

 ences that have been shewn to exist among various mem- 

 bers of the Class should yet be so reticent, or that when 

 he speaks he should rather use the language of Morphology, 

 which those who are not morphologists find difficult of 

 correct interpretation, and wholly inadequate to allow of 

 zoological deductions. 4 



3 It may he convenient to our readers that a list of Prof. Parker's 

 works which treat of ornithological subjects, in addition to the 

 two above mentioned, should here be given. They are as follows : — 

 In the Zoological Society's Trmiymiidns, 25th November 1862, "On 

 the Osteology of the Gallinaceous Birds and Tinamous," v. pp. 

 149-241; 12th December 1865, "On some fossil Birds from the 

 Zebbug Cave," vi. pp. 119-124 ; 9th January 1868, "On the Oste- 

 ologj of the Kagu," vi. pp. 501-521 ; 18th February 1873, "On the 

 /Egithognathous Birds," Pt. I. ix. pp. 289-352 ; 15th February 1876, 

 '■(.in the Skull of the .Kgith. ■.ii.-itli.-u I hid ," Pt. II. x. pp. 251-314. 

 In the Proceedings of the same Society, 8th December 1863, " On the 

 systematic position of the Crested Screamer," pp. 511-518; 28th 

 February 1865, "On the Osteology of Microglossa alecto," pp. 

 235-238. In the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 

 9th March 1805, "On the Structure and Development of the Skull 

 in the Ostrich Tube," pp. 113-183; 11th February 1869, "On the 

 Structure and Development of the Skull of the Common Fowl," pp. 

 755-807. In the Lhiiican Society's Transactions, 2d April 1874, 

 "On the Morphology of the. Skull in the Woodpeckers and 

 Wrynecks," ser. 2, Zoology, i. pp. 1-22; 16th December 1875, "On 

 the Structure and Development of the Bird's Skull," torn, fit., pp. 

 99 154. In the Monthly Mi,r,' ,"/.,>../ Journal for 1872, "On the 

 Structure and Development of the Crew's Skull," pp. 217-253 ; for 

 1873, "On the Development of the Skull in the genus Turdus," pp. 

 102-107, and "On the Development of the Skull in the Tit and 

 Sparrow Hawk," parts i. and ii., pp. 6-11, 45-50. There is bi idi s 

 the great work published by the Bay Society in 1868, A Monograph 

 on the Structure and Devi lopmeni of the Shoutdt r-girdle and Sternum, 

 of which pp. 142 -191 treat of these parts in the Class Ares ; and our 

 readers will hardly need to be reminded of the article Birds in the 

 present work (vol. iii. pp. 699-728). Nearly every one of this mar- 

 vellous series of contributions is copiously illustrated by plates from 

 drawings made by the author himself. 



4 As an instance, take the passages in which Turnix and Thinocorus 

 are apparently referred to the Mgithognathss (Trans. Zool, Society, ix. 

 pp. 291 et seqq. ; and supra, vol. iii. p. 700), a view which, as shewn by 

 the author (Transactions, x. p. 310), is not that really intended by him. 



XVIII. — 5 



