Mar. 1903 I 
THE CONDOR 
53 
CORRESPONDENCi: 
On Certain ‘Modern’ Tendencies 
Editor of The Condor: 
In examining some zoological works published in the early part of the 19th century I 
have recently noticed several discourses which may be of interest to the readers of The Condor. 
The numerous protests against the fine discrimination of species and subspecies which have been 
recently made in various zoological and particular!}' in ornithological journals are chiefly ad- 
dressed to those who indulge in what are termed ‘modern’ tendencies. It seems, however, that 
neither the protests nor the supposed tendencies are quite sufficiently modern to share the title 
with storage electricity and wireless telegraphy. As early as 1820, Dewitt Clinton (Letters on 
the Natural History and internal Resources of the State of New York, pp. 156-157) published a 
long dissertation upon this subject. The following short extract indicates the ‘deplorable’ state 
of affairs then existing. 
“This system [the Linnaean], when it came out of the hands of its great architect was 
recommended by its simplicity, and by its tendency to facilitate the acquisition of knowledge. 
In the progress of time it has become corrupted by the interpolations and sophistications of in- 
ferior workmen who have destroyed its beauty, deranged its symmetry, and undermined its 
strength. The multiplication of terms, the augmentation of synonymes, the creation of new 
genera, and the fabrication of new species, have overloaded the science with an Egyptian burden 
of terminology. Philosophy has been transferred from things to words, and the inventor of a 
new term, of specific or generic difference where none exists, has been absurdly considered as 
entitled to the honors of an important discovery. A new race of naturalists have started up, 
who confine their attention solely to verbal description, and who entirely overlook the habitudes 
and manners of animals, and the uses and characters of other organic beings, and of inorganic 
matter.’’ 
A few years later Janies E. Dekay, author of the well-known zoology of New York wrote as 
follows: « “New nominal species perplex the student, increase the labours of the critical natural- 
ist, and render the study of natural history tedious and difficult. If it was generally understood 
that it is more meritorious to extinguish a single nominal species than to establish a dozen new 
ones, it would effectually check the present mania for making new species often on slight foun- 
dations. This also leads to an overweening anxiety to secure priority; and hence descriptions are 
liable to be drawn up in a crude and hasty manner, without reference to the co-ordinate charac- 
ters.” 
In 1831, John Godman (Am. Nat. Hist, vol, I, pp. XV-XVI) presented the same ideas as 
follows: “Beginners of the study of natural history are generally liable to form erroneous con- 
clusions, among which none is more common and prejudicial than that of mistaking the system 
of classification for the subjects classed, or in other words, the arrangement of the names for the 
things themselves, nomenclature for natural history. * * * » The mist.ike above pointed 
out is continually urging many who would be esteemed naturalists to the formation of new gen- 
era and species, founded on trivial, accidental, or imperfectly noted differences betweeii creatures 
which, to all rational observers, appear the same. This retards science, and misleads individ- 
uals as to the character and objects of natural hi.story, which, judged by the conduct of some 
who are regarded as authorities, would appear to be the science of magnifying trifles and be- 
wildering the understanding. In natural history, as in other departments of human knowledge, 
none but sciolists are pedants; such persons struggle to impart to their implements the dignity 
and importance that should belong to the work alone, and, ‘in self adoring pride securely 
mailed,’ seek but to glorify themselves, considering the interests of science as nothing when 
weighed against the gratification of their own vanity'.” 
The application of the foregoing is not far to seek and it would be superfluous to state it at 
length. Surely' the systematists of today prefer the heritage they possess rather than that which 
would have been theirs if these ultra-conservative counsels had been followed to the letter. 
Wir.FRED H. Osgood. 
Washington, D. C. 
A Protest 
Editor of The Condor ; 
Kindly allow me to make a most emphatic protest against the useless and wasteful record 
of egg collecting in your journal, vol. IV, pp. 128-131, in a paper entitled “ The Holbcell Grebe 
a Address to The New Vork Lyceum, p. 76. 
