286 ON ME. ALLAN HUJME'S EEVIEW OF 'DEE PAPAGEIEN.' [1874. 



skins ? Eef^ardless of possible dangers they had gone ashore, seen the bird alive, breathed with 



it the same air, shot and dissected it! Blyth only knew it, not even from "half a dozen wrongly 



Ibis, 1874, sexed specimens in a museum," but from one, a much mutilated skin in a museum, and a second 



P- ^^^- good skin in private hands, but both with sexes undetermined by dissection. The inconvenient 



fact stated by Ilerr v. Pelzeln of the Nicobar female having a red maxilla is thus disposed of by 



Dr. Finsch's friendly censor, now growing " weary of exposing these " (Dr. Finsch's) " perpetual 



and perverse blunders" {t.c. p. 25). This specimen, "allow me to inform our author, was 



unquestionably a male, and had been, dissection or no dissection, wrongly sexed ! We shot and 



sexed 25 adults of this species .... and we know beyond the possibility of a doubt, that Dr. 



Cantor and Blyth were perfectly correct," etc. etc. {I. c). It is true that in a note quoted by 



Mr. Moore (P. Z. S. 1859, p. 454) Dr. Cantor states that the female has a black bill, and it was 



Mr. Blyth's foregone conclusion ; for he says " the bill wholly black, as I suggested it would be 



in this sex " {op. cit. 1846, p. 51, note). But Dr. Cantor's opinion on an ornithological question 



could not be accepted as conclusive. An intimate friend of my own (many a friendly Manilla 



have we smoked together in Fort William), Dr. Cantor was no ornithologist. An excellent 



ichthyologist and herpetologist, he knew little, and professed to know nothing, about birds. 



What Mr. Hume was going to '■'■ know beyond the possibility of a doubt" in 1874 we again 



humbly submit, at the risk of being tedious, could not have been known to Dr. Finsch full five 



years before. 



I have now shown that the major part of Mr. Hume's criticisms of Dr. Finsch's treatment 



of these eleven species of the genus Palceornis are in a less or greater degree mainly founded on 



perversions, misstatements, or misrepresentations of the established facts existing when Dr. Finsch 



was writino- ' Die Papageien,' or else on trivial inaccuracies of expression. Also that in no single 



instance do Dr. Finsch's references to Jerdon, Blyth, or other Indian naturalists, when fairly 



interpreted, exhibit even a breath of discourtesy or absence of deference, consistent with freedom 



of judgment, to any opinion expressed, or facts narrated, by them. And although Dr. Finsch 



may, by the light of recent investigations, be shown to have arrived at some erroneous conclusions, 



they were mostly logical inferences to draw from the conflicting evidence on record at the time 



Ibis, 1S74, he wrote. Towards the close of his article {t. c. p. 28) Mr. Hume has this passage, " I should 



p. 2[;9. ^^ £^^£^ ^y j^^^y j^g editor of the sole Indian ornithological joui-nal, if I did not rebuke, sans 



famous, his slighting treatment of the men to whom every Indian ornithologist owes so much." 



As an old Indian field ornithologist, as one of Dr. Jerdon's oldest friends, one in whom his 



memory lingers the most cherished of reminiscences, I protest against Mr. Hume's arrogating to 



himself the rio-ht to speak in the name of Indian ornithologists without better claim than the 



irresponsible editorship of a recent Indian ornithological periodical, or to exalt himself to the 



post of protector of Jerdon's, Blyth's, or any other Indian naturalist's reputation. The scientific 



works and deeds of those men are the common property of the scientific world, and not of a 



narrow Calcutta clique ; and their memories are far safer from reproach under the guardianship 



of that great and increasing body of gifted, highly trained, and generous men, than if left to the 



patronizing care of a carping, indiscriminating, illiterate, and noxious advocacy. Mr. Hume is 



at liberty to " rebuke " whomsoever he pleases. His blame or his praise, at least his blame, 



w^ill prove harmless. But Mr. Hume cannot evade the responsibilities of a reviewer. He cannot 



