go DICTIONARY OF BIRDS 
most of the smaller groups differences of far greater kind are overlooked, 
so that the forms which present them are linked together in more or less 
close union. ‘Thus, regarding only external characters, great as is the 
structural distinction between the Gannets, Cormorants, Frigate-birds and 
Pelicans, it is not held to remove them from the limits of a single Family ; 
and yet the Thrushes and the Chats, whose distinctions are barely sensible, 
are placed in separate Families. Again, even in one and the same group, 
the equalization of characters indicative of Families is wholly neglected 
Thus among the Pigeons the genera Didus and Didunculus, which differ, 
so far as we know it, in every external character of their structure, are 
placed in one Family, and yet on very slight pretext the genus Goura, 
which in all respects so intimately resembles ordinary Pigeons, is set apart 
as the representative of a distinct Family. The only use of dwelling upon 
these imperfections here is the hope that thereby students of Ornitholog 
may be induced to abandon the belief in the efficacy of external characters 
as a sole means of classification, and, seeing how unmanageable they become 
unless checked by internal characters, be persuaded of the futility of any 
attempt to form an arrangement without that solid foundation which can 
only be obtained by a knowledge of anatomy. Where Sundevall failed 
no one else is likely to succeed ; for he was a man gifted with intelligence 
of a rare order, a man of cultivation and learning, one who had devoted 
his whole life to science, who had travelled much, studied much and 
reflected much, a man whose acquaintance with the literature of his 
subject probably exceeded that of any of his contemporaries, and a man 
whose linguistic attainments rendered him the envy of his many friends. 
Yet what should have been the crowning work of his long life is one that 
all who respected him, and that comprehends all who knew him, must regret, 
though apart from his systematic treatment his handiwork is admirable.t 
Of the very opposite kind was the work of the two men next to be 
mentioned—Garrod and Forbes—both cut short in a career of promise ? 
1 In 1882 Dr. Reichenow prefixed to his Végel der Zoologischen Garten another 
scheme of Classification, which, though out of order, may here be mentioned, from its 
treatment being in several respects similar to Sundevall’s. Its author gave (I. p. viii.) 
the representation of a genealogical tree (Stammbawm) shewing the descent of existing 
Birds from those which were furnished with teeth (of which more presently) by four 
principal stems—1. “Kurzfliigler”, Brevipennes ; 2. speedily dividing into ‘‘Schwimm- 
vigel”, Natatores and ‘‘Stelzvégel”, Grallatores; 3. ‘‘ Girrvégel”, Gyrantes ; and 
4. “Finger”, Captatores, “‘Paarzeher”, Mibulatores and “ Baumvigel’’, Arboricole, 
which succeed one another in the order named. These all form 7 Series (Rethe) and are 
split into 17 Orders. The sense of proportion seems here more lamentably wanting 
than in Sundevall’s Tentamen. All the “Struthious” Birds form one Family, and the 
Oscines contain 21! While Series 5, Gyrantes, consists only of the Colwmbx, Series 
6, Captatores, includes Crypturi, Rasores (all Gallinz# and Opisthocomus), and Rap- 
tatores—containing Vulturide (Sarcorhamphine, Vulturine and Gypastine), Fal- 
conide and Strigida. This will shew that no account is taken of any structural 
characters except those which are superficial; but the author’s tree of ornithic 
genealogy may be regarded as an important feature, having been anticipated, so far as 
I know, only by that of Prof. Hiickel (Gen. Morphol. ii. Taf. vii.) which went but a 
short way. 
” Alfred Henry Garrod, Prosector to the Zoological Society of London, died of 
consumption in 1879, aged thirty-three. His successor in that office, William 
Alexander Forbes, fell a victim to the deadly climate of the Niger in 1883, and in his 
twenty-eighth year, 
