Oology as a Science 



To the Editor of Bird -Lore: 



It is rather curious that neither Professor Montgomery, who attacks the 

 "egg collector," nor Mr. Sharpies, who defends him, should have mentioned 

 von Nathusius, who made a careful study of the microscopical structure of 

 egg-shells and obtained some highly interesting results. He, at least, pur- 

 sued oology as a science. J. A. Ryder studied the relations of the shape of 

 eggs to that of the birds that laid them, and elaborated a theory to account 

 for the various forms of eggs. The pigmentation and character of the pig- 

 ment have also been the subjects of more or less research, and an English 

 naturalist has made long and careful observations on the eggs of the Murre 

 from which he seems to have learned much. 



Of course, the average egg-collector is that and nothing more, but has 

 the average collector of bird skins any higher claim to being a "scientist"? 

 How many collectors of anything, in fact, from cigar wrappers to old masters, 

 collect with any really intelligent purpose, any aim more definite than to 

 accumulate a number of objects whose possession gives them pleasure, all 

 the greater because their neighbors do not have them? 



Collecting skins and eggs of the Great Auk comes dangerously near 

 being just as much of a fad as collecting stamps; in some cases it is possibly 

 more of a fad, for there are stamp-collectors with definite aims and purposes. 

 The eggs of the humble and multitudinous English Sparrow have yielded 

 more important results than the highly prized and expensive eggs of the aristo- 

 cratic Great Auk. To secure a skin of the Labrador Duck would fill the 

 recipient with boundless joy, and yet, from a strictly scientific standpoint, it 

 is not a whit more valuable than one of the Old Squaw. One yields precisely 

 the same amount of information as does the other, neither more, nor less. 

 The Dodo is not important because it is extinct and rare, but because it is a 

 highly aberrant member of the Pigeon family and a magnificent example of 

 the effects of isolation and environment. 



Supposing that the eggs in the cabinets of collectors had developed into 

 embryos, would the world have been the wiser? How many eggs have been 

 wasted by embryologists and thus prevented from developing into chickens 

 and thereby contributing to the sustentation of mankind? 



Years ago Alfred Newton came forward to defend the egg-collector 

 before a parliamentary commission, and recently Mr. Brewster rose in his 

 behalf before the A. O. U. ; and, while this note is not to be taken too 

 seriously nor to be considered as a defence of indiscriminate egg-collecting, 

 it may perhaps show that in proper hands it may be capable of yielding good 

 results. For it is not the thing, but the manner in which it is used, that 

 counts. — F. A. Lucas. 



35 



