﻿The Amount of Science in Oology 



By THOS. H. MONTGOMERY, Jr. 



(University of Texas) 



THE term oology, as now generally employed, means the study 

 of the eggs of birds alone. Thus, it has come to be a branch of 

 ornithology and takes no count of the eggs of other animal 

 groups. And it is a still more circumscribed subject than its name would 

 seem to imply, for egg collectors amass simply the external shells of eggs 

 and have no interest in the other envelopes nor in the embryos them- 

 selves. This is a fair statement of what is included under oology, in the 

 general usage of the term. Strictly speaking, the nidification of birds is not 

 a part of oology, for nest-making falls rather into the broad category of 

 avian architecture that includes much besides the receptacles for the eggs. 

 And the mating and breeding habits lie, also, outside the domain of oology, 

 although oologists frequently give some attention to these subjects. 



It is our intention to examine briefly how much of scientific value has 

 been derived from the collecting and comparison of the egg-shells of birds. 



There are many who take out state licenses to collect eggs "for scien- 

 tific purposes" who do not seem to have a clear idea of what science is. 

 Collecting alone is, at the best, only a preparation for science, and often it 

 is not that much. All those, accordingly, who rest satisfied with large or 

 representative collections, and with their suitable arrangement and exhibi- 

 tion, are not prosecuting scientific work, and show that they have neither 

 desire nor ability to do it. They should, on this account, and to be in per- 

 fect harmony with the spirit of protective legislation, not be permitted to 

 collect unless it is their purpose to hand over their collections to men who 

 will make a scientific use of them. 



Certain oologists go further, in that they publish, to greater or less extent, 

 descriptions and figures of their specimens- There has grown up quite an 

 extensive literature of this kind. But description alone is not science, it 

 also is only a step toward it. If a collector has described most accurately 

 every set of eggs in his possession, and drawn no conclusions, he is no more 

 than a cataloguer. There is no particular virtue in either collecting or 

 describing unless one thereby enlarges his comprehension of the phenomena 

 and teaches others. 



The reason for this is not far to seek : science is interpretation of phe- 

 nomena, it has to seek out uniformity in the apparently diverse, or, to use 

 a term that has become somewhat old-fashioned but is nevertheless satisfy- 

 ing, to establish laws. Exactly in so far as oologists attempt to do this they 

 are scientific. If this were not so, the child who picks up bright pebbles and 

 tells his parents about them would be a scientist. 



The great fault with oology lies with its friends and banner-bearers. 



(95) 



