26 DIE PAPAGEIEN. 



These are a few of the facts which I have to record from per- 

 sonal observation in regard to the genus Palceomis, in refuta- 

 tion of Dr. Finsch's theories and in corroboration of the facts 

 stated by Jerdon, Blyth, Hodgson, Hutton, and other Indian 

 ornithologists. 



It must not however be supposed that I delude myself with 

 any vain hopes, that any thing / can say will influence our 

 author's views, which he had, as he himself admits, already vir- 

 tually formed before he investigated the subject. The ornithologist 

 so perfect in his own eyes as to be able to set aside contemptuously, 

 on the strength of foregone conclusions, the testimony of " mas- 

 ters " like those above-mentioned, will scarcely heed any thing 

 that their humble disciples may urge. In vain may we press 

 upon him the simplest facts, such as the difference in the sexes 

 of P. torquatus, known not only to every European in India, 

 who has the slightest taste for ornithology, but to millions of 

 native children ; he is not one to be taught from the lips of babes 

 and sucklings, and to all we can say, like Le medicin nialgre lui 

 he will, doubtless, answer with a smile of calm superiority 

 11 nous avons change tout cela \ "■ 



It is not however for Dr. Finsch that I write. Truth must 

 be vindicated, and authors, no matter how great their industry or 

 erudition, must not be allowed to impede, unchallenged, the pro- 

 gress of science by foisting on the public theories evolved out 

 of their own moral consciousness in the seclusion of their 

 cabinets, in place of the facts that nature herself sets before us. 



Moreover, these remarks have indirectly a wider application 

 than to the genus Palceomis, or to Dr. Finsch. 



After all, it is but a small matter in itself whether the adults 

 of both sexes in certain species of paroquets are or are not pre- 

 cisely similar. No man ever did any real good work in any 

 branch of natural history, without falling into numberless errors 

 as grave or graver than those which I have pointed out in Dr. 

 Finsch's work. It is not these errors at which I carp, it is 

 against the spirit which ]ed him into them (a spirit which in 

 various forms, seems to threaten seriously the advancement of 

 knowledge) that 1 emphatically raise my voice. 



In all branches of Natural History (and I have been an 

 earnest, though humble student of many), but specially in orni- 

 thology, I notice a tendency on the part of the compilers of 

 other men's observations, to exalt themselves above the observers, 

 to forget that, however useful their labours, they themselves are 

 for the most part mere book-makers and not naturalists in the 

 true sense of the word. They lose sig'ht of the fact that the 

 compiler of a jest book is by no means necessarily a wit, and rich 



