d'ombrain. 71 



So the study began to be a recognised entity and as the people turned their 

 attention more and more to the absorbing interest of the creations of Nature, so 

 accordingly arose the men and teachers who placed it on a sound scientific 

 basis, giving all things a name, often meaning, or referring to, a characteristic 

 and so the apparently '"long names" that the non-scientific are prone to con- 

 sider as '• jaw-breakers" came into being. 



In the early part of the 18th century (1707) was born Linnaeus, who has 

 been called the Adam of Zoology — Linnaeus set to work and evolved a method 

 of Classifying all living things of the world, and by this and his enumeration 

 brought order out of chaos. 



From this time on the study never looked back and the giants of Zoological 

 intellect have since been many in the land. To mention just two or three, Darwin, 

 Huxley, Owen. Haeckel, etc., will suffice. 



These bring us up to the 19th and 20th centuries, in which we find that 

 almost every other person in civilised communities knows something, however 

 small, of Zoological fact, and almost every large town or city has its private or 

 public collection of stuffed or preserved specimens and every important city its 

 Zoological Gardens. 



As an outcome of all the general study there naturally arises the person who 

 is attracted by one branch more than another and thus we have the specialist. 

 Sometimes, as in all special walks in life, the person who becomes such, knows 

 very little of the broader walks around him. At other times one with a broad 

 general knowledge of Zoology, will specialise in some branch exclusively. Now 

 my reason for drawing attention to these facts is to examine the present ad- 

 ministrations of public collections of both living and museum specimens. 



As far as can be practically done the positions of those in control of these 

 are men of scientific knowledge in the various subdivisions of Zoology as well as 

 that to which they have been specially attracted and this is as it should be, but 

 unfortunately it is not always found to be the case in actual practice. 



It should be the aim of those directing the work in all such collections and 

 in museums especially, to see that one who is possessed of special knowledge of 

 each department, should be the one appointed to fill each position. Speaking 

 as an ornithologist and taking as an instance our own Australian Museum, I 

 should like to see the staff appointment of a competent authority on birds. 

 One who could devote all his time to this branch alone. The Australian Museum 

 is acknowledged to be in possession of one of the finest collections of Australian 

 birds, and as such, is entitled to have a specialist in ornithology whose duties would 

 demand all his time. 



Museums generally, possess these special workers, but in those eases where 

 the duties are often divided between two or even more branches it is the duty 

 of those in administrative control to see that such a state of things in these 

 days of specialist work does not exist. 



Personally, I am of opinion that the possession of a Science degree should 

 not be a compulsory qualification, but I think also that although the holder 

 of such position may know more of his special work than others he should be 

 obliged during his tenure, to attend the Science Course at the University, even 

 without sitting for the examination for a degree, if he has not already done so. 



I think this should be the case in all branches of Zoology and thus the 

 elucidation and determining of all new or doubtful species would be made easier 

 and more free from error, and I urge those in authority to consider seriously 

 this suggestion. 



