234 THE ZOOLOGIST. 
The configuration and relations of natural objects may be 
indicated by their circumscribing lines, or by the incidence and 
distribution of their lights and shadows; or, again, the artist 
may work upon a system which attends not to their configuration, 
but to the distribution, qualities and relations of colours upon 
their surface—the system of colour, as it is called. 
Of these three systems, probably, a naturalist, pur et simple, 
is hardly competent to criticise any but the first. His eye, 
accurately trained by the constant observation of natural objects, 
is able to detect a faulty outline or the indication of a position or 
movement which is incompatible either with structure or habit. 
In such cases he can give reasons for his adverse criticism. 
With regard to “light and shade” he is more diffident. He may 
discover a want of reality in the effect produced, but may be 
unable to say why he considers it unreal. Still less is he able to 
criticise the method of ‘‘colour.” His only standard really is 
Nature, and in proportion as a picture is natural its value in his 
eyes is enhanced. Judged by this standard it sometimes happens 
that a picture which more or less fulfils the requirements of art, 
fails to commend itself in consequence of some inaccuracy of 
detail which has escaped the artist’s attention. ‘Thus, where 
“breakers” are depicted upon a smooth sandy shore, without 
any opposing bank or rock whereon the waves may break ; where 
spring flowers bloom in an autumn landscape; where sheep in 
harvest time are yet unshorn; where birds in snow are still 
in summer plumage, and so forth; such infidelity to Nature 
causes one to overlook almost entirely any redeeming merits 
which the picture may possess. 
We have not unfrequently been surprised at the errors which 
are perpetrated, even by Royal Academicians, in depicting 
some incident of sport or natural history with which the artist 
apparently is not personally familiar. Thus, we remember to 
have seen a picture of hawking by a Royal Academician, in 
which the falconer is depicted as carrying his hawk upon the 
wrong hand, and without either hood or jesses. Only a week or 
two since we saw a charming etching on vellum by a modern 
French artist, in which a faleoner was represented as in the 
act of taking away a Hare from four Kestrels! In the eyes of 
a naturalist, and in the eyes of a falconer, the artist could 
scarcely have committed a greater blunder! 
