274 THE ZOOLOGIST. 



specimens, there has been, and still is, a tendency amongst the more 

 conservative even of trustworthy cabinet naturalists to look with pity 

 upon records of the lives of animals as observed in captivity. Every 

 scientific man should bear in mind that the records of new facts in the life- 

 history of an animal, whether observed in captivity or freedom, are a positive 

 gain to science, and of more importance (when not easily discoverable) than 

 the description of a skin, inasmuch as anyone with average ability can 

 describe that upon which he can always lay his hand ; but many difficulties 

 may obtrude themselves when an observation has to be made from living 

 subjects. 



Aviculture, or the study of birds in captivity, ought to be as scientific as 

 the study of dead birds, and when pursued in a proper spirit it undoubtedly 

 is so. The true aviculturist always has his faculties awake; he must 

 never overlook any detail in the nidification of a species, any change in its 

 plumage, or the colouring of its soft parts ; he must observe when and how 

 the change takes place — whether by moult, gradual growth of colour in the 

 feathers, or abrasion of the brittle fringes of overlapping feathers revealing 

 the underlying colour ; every courtiug posture and note must be carefully 

 recorded, and the meaning of the notes studied. Although but little use has 

 been made, by scientific workers, of the valuable facts got together in Dr. 

 Russ's ' Handbuch fur Vogelliebhaber,' there is not the least doubt that they 

 are of considerable importance. A bird can never be said to have been per- 

 fectly described until the true colouring of the soft parts is included in the 

 description. Very many species have been fully described by Russ, the 

 colouring of the soft parts being carefully noted in nearly every instance ; 

 yet how seldom do we see any use made of these records by cabinet workers ! 

 Surely this is a mistake. 



It has been asserted that birds cannot be properly studied, even in large 

 aviaries, because they are under unnatural conditions. This is not only 

 untrue, but in many instances it is practically impossible to study their 

 habits under any other conditions. Probably the only reason why the 

 nidification of many of the commonest small birds has never been noted by 

 collectors is because they have only come across them on the edges of 

 morasses, or the outskirts of dense jungle and thicket, into which the birds 

 could penetrate with ease, but the observer could not follow. When 

 impenetrable scrub is represented by half a dozen bushes, the conditions 

 (if not the same as when the bird is wild) can hardly be called unnatural, 

 and observation of the nesting habits becomes easy. The fact that 

 unnatural birds [i.e. what are known as fanciers' birds), when turned out 

 into a large aviary, frequently construct the typical nests of tbeir remote 

 ancestors, is an argument (I think) against the assumption that aviary life 

 is unnatural, and therefore untrustworthy. The young plumages of many 



