254 



NA TV RE 



[December 30, 1909 



and holder of the Emperor of Austria's gold medal for 

 distinction in science; in 1905 he was president of the 

 fourth Ornithological Congress, which met m London. 



In addition to being joint author of the earher 

 portion of the " Birds of Europe " and sole author of 

 various bird-monographs such as those of the king- 

 fishers and birds-of-paradise, Dr. Sharpe compiled 13 

 out of the 27 volumes of the invaluable British 

 Museum "Catalogue of Birds," and was responsible 

 for the whole of the 5 volumes of the companion 

 work the " Hand-list of Birds," of which the last 

 volume was completed only a short time before his 

 death .-\s regards his knowledge of the external 

 features of birds, and his capacity for identifying 

 species Dr .Sharpe was, if not unrivalled, at all events 

 unsurpassed; and his preeminence in these respects 

 received world-wide recognition. Unfortunately, he 

 knew little of the anatomv of birds, so that in his 

 address on " .\ttempts to Classify Birds," read before 

 the second Ornithological Congress at Budapest in 

 iSqi he had to depend for this portion of his subject 

 on iAformation borrowed from Seebohm, who had in 

 turn been mainlv dependent upon Kitchen Parker 

 Under Dr. Sharpe's supervision, the collection ot 

 bird-skins in the British Museum increased by leaps 

 and bounds, and has now attained vast dimensions, 

 while it is specially valuable on account of the number 

 of " types " it contains. . , , . , ^ j- r,. 



As a relaxation from his ornithological studies. Dr. 

 Sharpe devoted, during the later years of his hfe, a 

 considerable amount of time to the natural history and 

 antiquities of Selborne, where he owned a cottage in 

 which he spent much of his holidays. .As the result 

 of these leisure-time studies, he brought out a beauti- 

 fully illustrated edition of "White's Selborne" in two 

 thick volumes. 



T' 



■Vn-E NATURAL HISTORY MVSEUM. 



'HE Times of December 28 includes further corre- 

 spondence upon the question of the separationof 

 the Natural History Museum from the British 

 Museum. In the two letters subjoined, Prof. A. 

 Sedgwick and Sir Ray Lankester reply to the letter 

 of Sir \rchibald Geikie, published in that journal on 

 December 13, and reprinted in Nature of December 

 16. 



I much regret that it should be necessary for me to 

 address you again on the subject of the Natural History 

 Museum, but the publication of the correspondence between 

 Mr. Lowther and Sir Archibald Geikie in your issue ot 

 December 13 last leaves me no alternative. The only satis- 

 factory thing about the correspondence is the admission 

 bv Mr. Lowther that the Trustees are uneasy in their own 

 niinds as to the satisfactoriness of the present arrange- 

 ments. They " are anxious to be reassured," Mr. Lowther 

 writes, " that the management of the Natural History 

 Museum is adequate." This is a sign of grace, if only a 

 small one, but such as it is we are thankful to have 

 obtained it. _ ., . , 



Before proceeding to deal with Sir Archibald Geikie s 

 letter, there are two small points to which I desire to 

 call the attention of your readers. The first of these con- 

 cerns the views of the Trustees as to the proper person to 

 call in for judgment in a matter directly concerning the 

 administration of the Museum. They call in one of their 

 own body. This seems to me to constitute a new departure 

 in judicial procedure. The second is the fact that the 

 President of the Royal Society, in his capacity as Trustee, 

 has allowed himself to be nominated public censor of 

 those of his colleagues who in the last forty years have 

 expressed objections to the system which is under dis- 

 cussion. I also desire to emphasise the following points : — 

 (i) In this prolonged agitation it has always been the 

 system of administration, and not the persons administering 



NO. 2096, VOL. 82] 



the svstcm, which has been impugned. (2) The living 

 protagonists of the agitation hold mat a system of control 

 bv Trustees is the best, provided that their number is 

 small and that the scientific element, whether professional 

 or other, is not represented as such (see Nature, April 29, 

 1909, p. 254). 



I now proceed to the consideration of Sir Archibald s 

 letter. It is painful to me to have to call in question the 

 deliberate statement of a much respected friend, and one 

 who holds the high and honoured position of President of 

 the Royal Society. It is hard to be certain of one's 

 motives, but I believe that my sole motive in the 

 present case is that of the interests of science. I also 

 wish to say that I have the same belief as to the 

 reasons which have induced Sir A. Geikie to write his 

 remarkable letter. The issue between us, therefore, is 

 simply one of fact, and can only be decided by an inquiry. 

 I had hoped, especially after Mr. Montagu's letter to you 

 of November 19, that the Trustees might be willing to 

 set their own house in order, and that an inquiry might 

 be avoided. I have not always held this view, and for 

 two vears, acting in conjunction with my colleagues, I 

 pressed for an inquiry ; but I came to see that there were 

 many difilculties in the way of an inquiry and objections 

 to the possible legislation which might result therefrom, 

 and that the essential points in which we deemed the 

 museum administration defective might be remedied by the 

 action of the Trustees themselves. I therefore welcomed 

 the suggestion in Mr. Montagu's letter, and wrote to you 

 to say so. But so long as Sir .Archibald's statements are 

 accepted as authoritative, and so long as the Trustees 

 think along the lines of Mr. Lowther's letter, it is clear 

 that reform from within is impossible, and that an inquiry 

 by impartial outsiders is a necessity. 



As Sir .Archibald Geikie says that he has made a 

 '• careful investigation of the facts of the case," we may 

 presume that all his statements, particularly those which 

 can be tested without any inquiry, will be accurate. Let 

 us submit his letter to that test. His first statement is 

 tiiat the " agitation has been carried on fitfully but per- 

 sistently in the public Press for many years, and has been 

 supported by some well-known men of science " (the italics 

 are mine). That Sir Archibald should have made this 

 statement shows that his investigation has been, to say 

 the least of it, superficial. The recent (during the last 

 half-century) history of the agitation is as follows. In the 

 year 1S66 there was a memorial to the Chancellor of the 

 Exchequer, signed by all the most famous biologists of 

 the time (I will enumerate them when I deal with the 

 word some), stating that they were " of opinion that it is 

 of fundamental importance to the progress of Natural 

 Sciences in this country that the administration of the 

 national Natural History Collections should be separated 

 from that of the Library and Art Collections, and placed 

 under one officer, who should be immediately responsible 

 to one of the Queen's Ministers." In the year 1874 the 

 Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction and the 

 .Advancement of Science, having fully considered the state 

 of the Natural History Departments in the British Museum 

 and taken evidence thereon from, the principal scientific 

 authorities of the country, came to the same conclusion. 

 In 1879 the Council of the British Association for the 

 Advancement of Science prepared a memorial to the Prime 

 Minister pointing out that the views of scientific men on 

 this subject, as embodied in the recommendations of the 

 Royal Commissioners, had been entirely overlooked, and 

 that " the question of the administration of the Natural 

 History Collections is one of the utmost importance as 

 regards the future progress of Natural History in this 

 country," and urging upon the Government to take the 

 opportunity afforded by the removal to South Kensington 

 " of effecting the alterations in the mode of administra- 

 tion of the Collections recommended by the Royal Com- 

 mission." Now ensued a lull in the agitation for twenty 

 years. The cause of this lull is highly instructive, and 

 must be mentioned here. Hitherto the head of the Natural 

 History Collections had been entitled Superintendent, and 

 had been subordinate to the Principal Librarian. In 1885, 

 on the recommendation of the Principal Librarian, Sir E. 

 Bond, the office of Superintendent was replaced by a new 

 office, that of Director, with new duties, new responsibili- 



