March 23, 1871 | 
NATURE 
403 


consequence; that 12,000 birds obviously cannot be 
figured in 400 engravings, and the statement was only 
intended to mean that the work is profusely illustra- 
ted ; that English readers do not care a button whether 
there are as many Brehms as birds, or what books they 
write; and that diabolical agency in the press may 
blunder as to woodcuts or their explanations. Suppose 
we grant all this, and consider the rest of the work. We 
have expressed doubts as to the authenticity of the 
“Editor’s Introduction,” but even if they are rightly 
founded, the affair may be condoned should the translator 
and adaptor have performed his task well. We imagine 
that the first duty of a translator is to give an exact 
rendering of every phrase or name in the original, and it 
becomes necessary to see how far this has been done in 
the presentinstance. If there is a foreign bird well-known 
in this country, it is the common Grey Parrot—here we 
are taught to call it the “ Jako” (p. 35), which may well be 
its German name but is not an English one. So also the 
great South-American group of Tanagers are throughout 
(pp. 150-155) “ Tangaras.” A similar case is that of the 
Serin, which is left (p. 106) under its Teutonic appellation 
of “ Girlitz,? which common German idiomatic term 
is comically rendered (p. 107) “a little pair ;” and the 
British public has to find out as it best can that by “ Tree- 
Falcon” (p. 305) is meant our well-known summer visitant 
the Hobby, though under the latter name it has flourished 
for hundreds of years. Indeed, the translators igno- 
rance of his subject is manifest on almost every page, 
but nowhere is it so remarkably displayed as when 
he introduces (p. 50) the word “ Dronte,” without the 
slightest apparent perception that by it is meant our 
.old friend, the Dodo! Further proof of his incom- 
petency for his task is shown by the mistakes (which 
cannot all be misprints) in the names of naturalists ; thus 
we have “ Jerdan” (p. 30) for Jerdon, “ Speke” (p. 39) for 
Spix, “ Boja” (p. 126) for Boie, and “ Nardoi” (p. 300) for 
Nordvi. That a corresponding indifference to the niceties 
of scientific nomenclature should be exhibited is, of course, 
to be expected ; but, setting aside such untechnical forms 
as “Corys alauda arborea” (p. 204) and “ Cecropis- 
Hirundo-domestica” (ii. p. 105), we can hardly think that 
Dr. Alfred Brehm could have ever said that Linnzeus 
named a bird Derotypus accipitrinus and Derotypus 
coronaius (p. 42), and we must suppose that the original 
sentence has been misunderstood. 
Another instance, if another be wanted, to prove the 
inaptitude of the translator for his work, is the confusion 
existing in his mind between words like “variety,” “race,” 
“tribe,” “family,” and even “order.” However much 
naturalists may differ as to the limits or value of the 
groups thus designated, all are expected to have clear 
notions as to what the terms mean. The translator of the 
“Book of Birds” jumbles them together, and thus raises 
fresh doubts as to his identity with Prof. Rymer Jones. 
We have “varieties ” spoken of (p. 92), where species are 
clearly meant ; “race” (p. 55 and p. 150), when something 
at least as comprehensive as a family is intended; “tribe” 
(p. 47 and p. 122) without any definite meaning at all ; and 
“family” (p. 43 andii. p. 136) in a sense as obscure ; while 
“order” is used so vaguely that in one place (p. 23) it in- 
cludes all the parrots and some other birds, which last, 
when they come to be described (p. 83) are spoken of as 
forming an “order” of themselves, so that we have an 
“order” within an “o-der,” whereat our reader will probably 
exclaim “ Disorder!” Dr. Alfred Brehm may have some 
queer ideas as to classification (of which more imme- 
diately), but we feel sure he never committed such a high 
crime and misdemeanour as this. 
Having thus noticed some of the shor'comings of the 
translator, we must say a few words on the author’s treat- 
ment of the subject. We have just referred to his ideas 
on classification, but it is not easy to ascertain what they 
really are, for no scheme of arrangement is given. Enough 
however is to be gathered to show that they are somewhat 
peculiar if not original. We do not quarrel with him on 
this account. In the present state of ornithological science, 
its teachers, as well as its students, may well be pardoned 
for not adopting any plan already promulgated ; but in a 
work intended for “ everyone who wishes to know all that 
is known about birds,” it is only reasonable to expect 
that the projects of prior systematists should receive some 
attention, and due cause shown why such and such 
arrangements are inadmissible or the contrary. Now we 
cannot find anything of the sort here. It is true that the 
author begins by remarking (p. 23) that it is usual in 
most ornithological works to place the Vultures first, but 
they are “the most disagreeable and least intelligent 
of the race” (admirable and philosophical reasons for 
deposing them !), and he recognises in the Parrots the 
“qualifications most fitted to entitle them to take prece- 
dence.” For them accordingly he constitutes a “ distinct 
order under the quaint but expressive names of Crackers 
(Enucleatores)”—we will not copy the printer’s bad spell- 
ing of the last word. Many ornithologists will so far 
agree with Dr. Alfred Brehm, but we read on, and to our 
surprise find that this order is “by no means limited to 
the parrots ; it includes various other seed-eating birds, 
chiefly belonging to the passerine tribes, the resemblance 
of which to parrots has been in some cases generally 
acknowledged in selecting the names ordinarily conferred 
upon them. Thus, the Crossbills have long been known 
in Germany as the Fir-tree parrots, and, on the other 
hand, the epithet of Sparrow-parrots, applied to some 
races of climbing birds, clearly shows the relationship 
that exists between these generally dissevered groups.” 
Yet a few words more are needed before we conclude. 
There is Science, and Science falsely so called. Itis a 
rank offence to give the stone of science falsely so called, 
instead of the bread of true science, and this is what all 
concerned in the present work must be held to have done, 
while to back up the imposture by assertions which are 
palpably or presumably untrue, is an aggravation of the 
crime, and like all crimes, its commission is a mistake, 
There is no more erroneous belief than that a book to be 
popular cannot be scientific, for numerous are the scientific 
books which have attained toa high degree of popularity. 
But scientific books are under a heavy disadvantage when 
they have to struggle for existence amid a growth of 
specious pretenders. The young beginner full of 
enthusiasm knows not at first to distinguish the wheat 
from the tares which surround it. The duty, therefore, 
of everyone who does know the difference, is to point 
out and bind the tares for the burning, and in doing this 
he must not shrink from expressing his opinion of those 
who sow them. We have heard it said that it matters 
