142 BIRD HAUNTS AND NATURE MEMORIES 



or pattern, so precious in the eyes of the systematist, he 

 sees a bird and recognises it. He says that it is a chaffinch, 

 a lark, or a sparrow ; but how does he know ? Shape, 

 size, manner of flight, or maybe note, is the reply. Yes, 

 but there is something more; something definite yet 

 indefinable, something which instantly registers identity 

 in the brain, though how or what is seen remains un- 

 specified. It is its jizz. 



That mental picture recorded through the eye is ac- 

 curate in proportion to our familiarity with the species ; 

 the more familiar we are the less we note except the jizz. 

 The passing curlew may have a long curved bill, a pale 

 lower back, a strong distinctive flight; we knew these 

 characters were present, but we did not actually see them ; 

 we saw a curlew. Curlew flashed into the brain without 

 pause for mental analysis, for we noted the jizz. I am 

 often asked the question which the Irishman was asked; 

 I know of no better answer than his. 



Personal experience has proved that a skin, a cabinet 

 skin, may be more difficult to recognise than a living 

 bird. In the skin we see certain patches of colour, 

 markings, or patterns with which we are unfamiliar on the 

 bird in the field. They are described in the textbooks 

 it is true, but they are not the points which catch the 

 eye when the bird is alive. In addition all the pose, 

 attitude, and habit-character is lost when bird becomes 

 specimen. Its jizz is gone. The systematist, used to 

 handling these specimens, contends that identification 

 by impression is less sure than by study of detail, which is 

 in the main true, but then, even if an error is made, the bird 

 is still alive ! That to the field naturalist as well as the 

 humanitarian is an important point. 



How often we hear disputes as to the value of the 

 drawing or the photograph as the more satisfactory 

 portrait of the bird; how futile is much of this discussion! 



