1887O Correspondence. 17 3 



worthless the experiments of Audubon, Bachman, and Darwin, and offers 

 his own chance observations as proof that these able and careful observers 

 were entirely wrong as regards both their methods and conclusions. It 

 seems almost superfluous to say that our critic can scarcely have read the 

 original accounts of the experiments he condemns, or he would neither 

 accuse so thoughtlessly nor explain so easily. 



As to the anatomical evidence introduced, it may be remarked that such 

 an argument from structure to function is often extremely unsafe, even 

 for the accomplished anatomist, and the danger is greatest where the ex- 

 perience is least. True, Owen has shown that the Turkey Buzzard has 

 well-developed olfactory nerves; but in the same paper (P. Z. S., V, 1S37, 

 P- 34> 35' where he records this, he states that the same nerves were found 

 to be fully as well developed in the Goose, while even in the Turkey they 

 were fairly developed, although only about one sixth as large. Further- 

 more, this distinguished anatomist, a part of whose testimony Mr. Savles 

 finds so "entirely satisfactory," closes his paper with the remark, that "The 

 above notes show that the Vulture has a well-developed organ of smell, 

 but whether he finds his prey by that sense alone, or in what degree it as- 

 sists, anatomy is not so well calculated to explain as experiment." Again, 

 according to Owen (Comp. Anat. and Phys. Vert., II, 132), the olfactory 

 nerves are relatively largest, among birds, in the Apteryx ; yet this bird 

 appears to use its power of smell mainly for the detection of the worms 

 which form its daily food, and for which it probes in the ground, thus 

 apparently using its keen scent only at very short distances,— hardly 

 more indeed than the length of its own bill. 



Turning now to the personal observations of Mr. Savles, let us consider 

 the evidence which he calls "positive," yet which I regard as entirely in- 

 conclusive. In the first place, the data given us are very incomplete, and 

 several of the most important points recorded were observed merely by 

 chance, and before any significance was attached to them ; and one can 

 scarcely help questioning the accuracy of many of the details of such ob- 

 servations, especially when it is remembered that the occurrences narrated 

 took place more than a dozen years ago, and we are not informed whether 

 the narrator writes from memory or from notes taken at the time. It is 

 doubtful whether, under the most favorable circumstances, the movements 

 of Buzzards could be fairly watched at a distance of "more than two miles," 

 and we are not even told how this distance was determined. Again, as the 

 observations were simply accidental, it is more than possible that single 

 Buzzards had already reached the place unobserved by our critic, but not 

 without attracting the attention of the distant flock, which responded in 

 the usual manner. In order to account for the coming of these first few 

 individuals we have only to assume that the dogs had carried out and left 

 exposed a few fragments of offal, which would readily be detected by any 

 sharp-sighted Buzzard which chanced to be passing, or which may have 

 been in the habit of visiting the plantation every morning. * 



*In March, 1886, the writer received from S. E. Cassino& Co., the publishers of the 

 'Standard Natural History,' a lengthy criticism of his statements about the power of 



