The Question of the Amount of Science in Oology 



To the Editor of Bird-Lore: 



Two replies have been made to my article on this subject in this magazine 

 of the May-June issue, and I would ask a little space for a return of courtesies. 



Mr. R. P. Sharpies (BiRD-LoRE, September-October), in admitting his 

 ignorance of the names and works or the great embryologists named by me, 

 presents an example of the general lack of knowledge among oologists of 

 biological thought. He is also mistaken in considering embryology to be 

 a branch of oology, for the former subject comprehends all the stages of the 

 organism from the egg and the spermatozoon up to the adult, and had been 

 studied for some three centuries before the term oology came into use. One 

 might as well say that a gable upon a house supports the house! Then, in 

 answer to his question, I would reply that I know the works of Davie 

 and Bendire, and am aware that the latter is of great importance; that 

 I have had a slight personal acquaintance with Warren, and high esteem for 

 his services in securing protection for the Hawks and Owls; and that for 

 Baird I have always felt a great admiration, and would point out that his 

 fame rests largely upon his studies in comparative anatomy and geographica' 

 distribution, particularly of the fishes and amphibians. It is not quite fair to 

 allude to me by innuendo as one who has no field acquaintance with birds, 

 because from my ninth to my eighteenth year I spent most of my time col- 

 lecting and observing birds near the very town in which Mr. Sharpies resides, 

 and my collections of skins are in two of the Philadelphia museums. 



The writer of the editorial in 'The Condor,' November number, ex- 

 hibits a broader point of view. But he is hardly correct in his statement 

 that the vast bulk of the work of embryologists, morphologists and 

 systematists is mere cataloguing of the structures of animals and plants." 

 Embryology alone has built up the following important conclusions: that 

 the adult is formed by a gradual differentiation, by an interaction of inherent 

 energies and environmental stimuli; that the species is as much marked in 

 the egg as in the adult stage ; that all problems of heredity come down to an 

 understanding of the energies of the germ-cells, as also does sex -determina- 

 tion; that it is probable that the mystery of variations will be solved by the 

 analysis of individual development; that the adult cannot be comprehended 

 without an understanding of its growth; and here many other great con- 

 clusion might be mentioned were the space at my command not limited. 



Systematists and morphologists in cooperation have given us the theory 

 of evolution, the meaning of division of labor and polymorphism, the idea of 

 homologies, etc. These results would have been impossible with a simple 

 cataloguing of facts; they depend on far-reaching generalization. But 

 oology, the collecting and study of dead egg-shells, what ample generalization 

 has it given us? None at all, and, therefore, it is not science and cannot be 



(36) 



