INTRODUCTION 65 
to describe, in each of the four genera examined by him—Struthio, Rhea, 
Dromzxus and Casuarius.! It is significant that notwithstanding this he 
did not figure the pterylosis of any one of them, and the thought suggests 
itself that, though his editor assures us he had convinced himself that 
the group must be here shoved in (eingeschoben), the intrusion is rather 
due to the necessity which Nitzsch, in common with most men of his 
time (the Quinarians excepted), felt for deploying the whole series of 
Birds into line, in which case the proceeding may be defensible on the 
score of convenience. The extraordinary merits of this book, and the 
admirable fidelity to his principles which Burmeister shewed in the 
difficult task of editing it, were unfortunately overlooked for many years, 
and perhaps are not sufficiently recognized now. Even in Germany, the 
author’s own country, there were few to notice seriously what is certainly 
one of the most remarkable works ever published on the science, much 
less to pursue the investigations that had been so laboriously begun.? 
Andreas Wagner, in his report on the progress of Ornithology (Arch. f. 
Naturgesch. vii. 2, pp. 60, 61), as might be expected from such a man as 
he was, placed the Pterylographie at the summit of those publications the 
appearance of which he had to record for the years 1839 and 1840, 
stating that for “Systematik” it was of the greatest importance. On the 
other hand Oken (Isis, 1842, pp. 391-394), though giving a summary of 
Nitzsch’s results and classification, was more sparing of his praise, and 
prefaced his remarks by asserting that he could not refrain from laughter 
when he looked at the plates in Nitzsch’s work, since they reminded him 
of the plucked fowls in a poulterer’s shop—it might as well be urged as 
an objection to the plates in many an anatomical book that they called 
to mind a butcher’s—and goes on to say that, as the author always had the 
luck to engage in researches of which nobody thought, so had he the luck. 
to print them where nobody sought them. In Sweden Sundevall, with- 
out accepting Nitzsch’s views, accorded them a far more appreciative 
‘ greeting in his annual reports for 1840-42 (i. pp. 152-160); but of course 
in England and France ? nothing was known of them beyond the scantiest 
notice, generally taken at second hand, in two or three publications.4 
1 He does not mention Apteryz, at that time so little known on the Continent. 
2 Some excuse is to be made for this neglect. Nitzsch had of course exhausted 
all the forms of Birds commonly to be obtained, and specimens of the less common 
forms were too valuable from the curator’s or collector’s point of view to be subjected 
to a treatment that might end in their destruction. Yet it is said, on good authority, 
that Nitzsch had the patience so to manipulate the skins of many rare species that 
he was able to ascertain the characters of their pterylosis by the inspection of their 
inside only, without in any way damaging them for the ordinary purpose of a 
museum. Nor is this surprising when we consider the marvellous skill of Continental 
and especially German taxidermists, many of whom have elevated their profession to 
a height of art inconceivable to most Englishmen, who are only acquainted with the 
miserable mockery of Nature which is the most sublime result of all but a few “ bird- 
stuffers.” 
3 In 1836 Jacquemin communicated to the French Academy (Comptes Rendus, 
ii. pp. 374, 375 and 472) some observations on the order in which feathers are 
disposed on the body of Birds ; but, however general may have been the scope of his 
investigations, the portion of them published refers only to the Crow, and there is no 
mention made of Nitzsch’s former work. 
4 Thanks to Mr. Sclater, the Ray Society was induced to publish, in 1867, an 
