NARGRE 
345 
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1885 
MR. GRIEVE ON THE GAREFOWL 
The Great Auk, or Garefowl (Alca impennis, Linn.), zts 
fitstory, Archeology, and Remains. By Symington 
Grieve, Edinburgh. 4to, pp. x. 141, and Appendix, 
pp. 58. (London: Jack, 1885.) 
GREEABLY to the wish of the editor of NATURE 
that I should notice in its pages the lately-published 
volume whose title stands above, I undertake a responsi- 
bility of a kind which is for me as delicate as can be 
imposed upon anybody. It has long been no secret that 
for more than five-and-twenty years—since, indeed, the 
premature death, in 1859, of my friend and fellow-traveller, 
the late Mr. JOHN WOLLEY—I have had it in hand to 
prepare and eventually to produce a monograph of the 
presumably extinct species of bird, into the investigation 
of whose history he had thrown himself with all the 
energy of his character. During that time I am not 
conscious of having ever lost an opportunity of adding to 
my store of information on the subject, in doing which I 
was for several years assisted by the zeal of the late Mr. 
G. D. Rowley ; and, though always having in view the 
ultimate publication of the monograph originally con- 
templated by Mr. Wolley, I never hesitated to supply any 
inquirer with the particulars for which he asked—as may be 
seen on reference to the publications of Dr. Victor Fatio1 
and of Prof. Wilhelm Blasius*—both of whom I rejoice 
to think I was able in some measure to help. Neverthe- 
less, each attempt to elucidate the natural history of the 
Garefowl only added to the number of still unanswered or 
unanswerable questions relating to it ; and, amid numerous 
other occupations or duties, I have with difficulty been 
able to keep myself abreast of the ever-increasing contri- 
butions to the subject—many (I may say most) of them 
proving on investigation to have little or no foundation ; 
and those which had the least, or none at all, generally 
giving the greatest trouble. 
Apology, I feel sure, is needed for an introduction so 
egotistical as that contained in the foregoing paragraph ; 
yet without it, or something like it, I fear my remarks on 
the book before me may be misunderstood. The force of 
circumstances has compelled me to set up a very high 
standard; and, when that standard has not been ap- 
proached by any writer on the subject, it is almost im- 
possible for me not to see his shortcomings, though many 
another man might find in him no fault at all. I there- 
fore wish at once torecord my opinion that in the present 
work the author has done the best that in him lies, and 
especially that his book, so far as it goes, is an honest 
book. If, after working at the subject for more than a 
quarter of a century, a man still finds himself unable, from 
one cause or another, to publish the results of his labour, 
it does not follow that he should be hard upon anybody 
else who, with perhaps as many distractions, makes a 
praiseworthy attempt to set before the world what is 
known of the lost species, though he may not have 
devoted to the task a tenth of the time. Moreover, Mr. 
T Bull. Soc. Orn. de la Suisse, ii. pt. 1, pp. 5-70, 73-85. 
2 Ver. f. Naturw. zu Braunschweig, W. pp. 89-115; Journ. fiir Orn., 
1884, pp. 58-176. 
VOL. Xxx11.—No. 832 
Grieve begins his preface with the words : “In submitting 
these pages to the public, the author has fears that they 
will not bear severe criticism.” I regret to say that 
regard to truth obliges me to declare that this isso; but 
I have no wish to be the severe critic, and it will be best 
here to describe the plan and scope of the work, which is 
obviously well chosen. Mr. Grieve begins with a very 
appropriate dedication to Prof. Steenstrup, that venerable 
biologist who first wrote a history '—he modestly called 
it only a “contribution ” to a history—of Alca zmpennis 
that was in accordance with facts, and was worthy of the 
subject, of science, and of himself. The amount of 
indebtedness to him, due from all his successors in the 
investigation—but not always acknowledged—is not to 
be overrated. Hard as they may have found their 
work, it has almost entirely lain in clothing the form 
that he constructed ; and, though there has been plenty 
of false tailoring, his outlines have proved to be true 
in almost every particular. In the dedication Mr. 
Grieve very justly states that he has not “much to 
relate that is new to British ornithologists ;” but his 
desire has been “to bring within the reach of all, mate- 
rials that at present are difficult of access.”* These pre- 
liminaries over, the geographical range of the species— 
first in American and then in European waters—is 
entered upon, care being taken to warn the reader 
against the popular misconception that it was ever 
a bird of the high north, and then is given a description 
of its remains as found in the New World and in the Old. 
Under the last category come four chapters treating 
respectively of the discovery of its bones in Caithness, 
and in Oronsay, of the period to which the kitchen- 
midden on that island containing them presumably 
belongs, and of the single fragment found near Whitburn- 
Lizards, on the coast of Durham, by Mr. Hancock, which 
fragment, being the greater portion of the maxilla of what 
seems to have been an exceptionally large example, now 
in the Museum at Newcastle-on-Tyne, is very delicately 
figured (p. 64). After this Mr. Grieve enters upon a con- 
sideration of the bird’s habits and of the regions in which 
it lived, and then proceeds to catalogue at some length 
(pp. 76-114) its existing remains—whether bones, skins, 
or egg-shells. Then follow three chapters on the uses to 
which the bird was put by man, on the names by which 
it has been known, with their possible origin and meaning, 
and on the period during which it lived. No fewer than 
nine appendices are added—all more or less of the nature 
of pidces justificatives—while an excellent index, with re- 
marks on the accompanying chart, completes the volume, 
which is illustrated by several woodcuts and a couple of 
coloured plates representing the two eggs that doubtless 
came to Edinburgh in 1819 with Dufresne’s collection, 
when it was bought by the University there, and, having 
been transferred to the Museum of Science and Art in 
the northern capital, were first publicly noticed by Major 
Feilden in 1869. 
There cannot be a dispute as to the great pains which 
the author has taken with this work, but it would be in- 
expedient here to attempt any criticisms of its details, to 
an abundance of which exception may be taken. The 
I Vidensk. Meddel. Naturh. Forening i Kyébenhavn, 1855, pp- 33 to 118. 
* Here may be added that, if report speaks truly, so strong has been this 
desire on the part of the author, that the book is sold to the public at less 
than cost price. 
AA 
