INTRODUCTION 103 
and merely to copy his diagrammatic expression of the relationships 
between different groups taken in horizontal section across the tree’s main 
branches, as shewn on the next page.! 
While toiling at his gigantic task Prof. Fiirbringer was in frequent 
communication with his friend Dr. Gadow, at that time engaged in 
completing the Ornithology of what is known as Bronn’s Thier- Reich. 
This harmonious intercourse naturally had an effect on the opinions of 
each. On the termination of the former’s labours the latter, profiting of 
course by them, continued his own investigations in order to work out 
the systematic part of his subject, and they led to conclusions which, 
though for the most part agreeing with those of his predecessor, as might 
be expected when both were the results of morphological research, 
differed from them in several rather important particulars. In 1892 
Dr. Gadow contributed to the Proceedings of the Zoological Society (pp. 
229-256) a highly condensed summary of his views ‘ On the Classification 
of Birds,’ which in the following year he elaborately set forth, with some 
slight modifications, in the Systematie portion of the work above named 
(pp. 61-282). This Classification is based on the examination, mostly 
autoptic, of a far greater number of characters than any that had pre- 
ceded it, and, moreover, they were chosen in a different way, discern- 
ment being exercised in sifting and weighing them, so as to determine, 
so far as possible, the relative value of each, according as that value may 
vary in different groups, and not to produce a mere mechanical “key” 
after the fashion become of late years so common. Whether the upshot 
of it all has been to establish a Natural Classification, one indicating the 
true descent and the real affinities of the several groups known, time 
alone will shew; but that this latest attempt has been made according 
to the best method few will doubt. Dr. Gadow recognizes two Sub- 
as the paradigm, and the whole has been preyed upon by one of the most successful 
of modern plagiarists. 
1 It is difficult to take as seriously as they were intended the two alternative 
methods simultaneously presented in 1890, by the late Mr. Seebohm (Classification 
of Birds. London: 8vo), while a somewhat modified arrangement of certain groups 
was offered in his Birds of the Japanese Empire, which appeared a few months later ; 
but hesitation on that score was removed by his publication in 1895 of a fourth 
scheme called a Supplement, though really subverting its predecessors. In each of 
these works the language of science is professed, but the author’s natural inability to 
express himself with precision, or to appreciate the value of differences, is everywhere 
apparent, even when exercising his wonted receptivity of the work of others, and 
especially of Dr. Stejneger and Prof. Fiirbringer. ‘Nevertheless the first of these 
works formed the basis of Dr. Sharpe’s arrangement (Review of Recent Attempts to 
Classify Birds, pp. 55-90) propounded in 1891 to the International Ornithological 
Congress held that year at Buda-Pest, and shortly after followed, with some slight 
alteration, in his Catalogue of the osteological specimens of Birds in the Museum of 
the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Dr. Sharpe, however, is not the only 
disciple of Mr. Seebohm, whose method commanded the admiration of Prof. 
Mivart in his handy volume (Birds : The Elements of Ornithology. London : [1892] 
p. 255), which is pronounced by Mr. Headley (The Structure and Life of Birds. 
London: 1895, p. 390)'to be “The best book for beginners.” 
The year 1891 saw also the Nouvelle Classification proposte pour les Oiseaux by 
Dr. Alphonse Dubois (Mém. Soc. Zool. de la France, iv. PP. 96-116), grounded 
mainly on the work of Sundevall, though modified by Huxley’s views. The author 
had the advantage of knowing Prof. Fiirbringer’s scheme ; but hardly of appreciat- 
ing the morphological considerations on which it was based. The chief peculiarity of 
Dr. Dubois’s plan is a revival of Bonaparte’s notion as to the primacy of the Psittaci. 
