President's Address. 99 



England possessed at the same epoch several energetic and 

 learned naturalists, worthy successors of Willughby and Ray, 

 who hadiaid the foundation of the study of Natural History 

 in this country. Not to mention all the British authors of 

 the period and their work, duly chronicled by Professor 

 Newton in his "Introduction," it is impossible to consider 

 this period of our history without a reference to the influences 

 on British Ornithology of Gilbert White, Bewick, Pennant, 

 and Montagu, whose writings not only promoted serious 

 study, but contributed to the popularity of ornithological 

 research, which has ever since been a distinguishing feature 

 of oui' country. 



Of the British Museum, however, but little was heard, 

 and, as far as I can discover, there were no special 

 features in the Bird Collection to excite much interest among 

 the public. I have given in the official ' History ' of the 

 ornithological collections, a summary of the gradual growth 

 of the latter, as far as I have been able to trace the develop- 

 ment in the little guide-books which were published for the 

 Trustees under the title of a i Synopsis of the Contents of the 

 British Museum.' The earliest we possess in our library is 

 that of 1808, but before that date, Dr. John Latham had pub- 

 blished his ' General Synopsis of Birds,' in which he indicated 

 every species known to him as existing in the British Museum, 

 the number being just over 400. 



As Latham played an important part in the history of 

 Ornithology, I cannot do better than quote Professor Newton 

 again (Tntr. Diet. Birds,' p. 11) : — " Great as were the services 

 of Buffon to Ornithology in one direction, those of a wholly 

 different kind rendered by our countryman, John Latham, must 

 not be overlooked. In 1781 he began a work, the practical 

 utility of which was immediately recognised. This was his 

 General Synopsis of Birds, and, though formed generally on 

 the model of Linneeus, greatly diverged in some respects there- 

 from. The classification was modified, chiefly on the older 

 line of Willughby and Ray, and certainly for the better; but 

 no scientific nomenclature was adopted, which, as the author 

 subsequently found, was a change for the worse. His scope 

 was co-extensive with that of Brisson, but Latham did not 



