70 
THE CONDOR 
Vol. XVIII 
We venture to hope, also, that the acquisition of really cosmopolitan mate- 
rial may enable us to shed some light upon the unsolved problem of the causes 
of variation in the eggs of the Passerine forms. We conceive this in itself to be 
a not unworthy task. 
Besides these phylogenetic matters, a score of lesser problems, all of strictly 
scientific import, group themselves under the head of comparative oology proper. 
For example : 
The mechanics and chemistry of pigmentation. 
The effect of climate upon color— the progressive darkening of northern eggs; the 
reduction of spotting in desert-haunting species. 
Homoplasy, or the tendency to similarity in eggs, independent of that of the par- 
ents. 
Degeneration of pigment. Albinism and reversion to white, gradual or sudden. 
“Economy”. Persistence of and reversion to primitive characters. 
The range of individual, specific, and generic variation. 
The relation of number and size in eggs to food-quality or abundance. 
The relation of number and size to the forage radius of the parent. 
The relation of bulk to precocity, or preparedness in the chick. 
The effects of isolation, persecution, competition, degeneration and senescence. 
“Psychological” control of the reproductive cycle. 
Does the high coloring of eggs in the Passerine forms evidence a dawning esthetic 
interest in the parents? 
These and a dozen other lines of inquiry of equal moment suggest them- 
selves to the student of comparative odlogy. We hold it, then, to be well worth 
while to assemble with painstaking care material adequate for the solution of 
these problems. Those pseudo-scientists who affect to despise the opportunity 
for research offered by a comparative study of birds’ eggs are simply airing 
their own ignorance. 
But of course these problems connect themselves with a vastly wider realm 
of inquiry. The egg is merely the focal point about which gather the highly 
complicated and indubitably fascinating interests of the reproductive cycle. 
Although named after this focal point, it is farthest from the purpose of the 
Museum of Comparative Oology to confine itself to a study of the egg alone. 
The nest is of at least equal, perhaps of greater, interest. Although its phylo- 
genetic value may be small, there is nothing else in nature so eloquent, so con- 
cretely revealing of the hidden life, of “animal psychology”, as the nest of a 
bird. It is an epitome of history, an aspiration, of intelligence, and of all besides 
that goes to make up the charm of a living bird. It is to our discredit that the 
study of nidology has been so much neglected in America, — for no better reason, 
apparently, than that nests “take up a lot of room”. This glaring defect in our 
study apparatus, the Museum of Comparative Oology proposes to remedy. Our 
plans are drafted about the central idea of providing storage space for represen- 
tative nests of all the world’s birds. 
And here, again, our interest does not stop. Since the higher manifesta- 
tions of avian activity group themselves about the reproductive cycle, or, in 
effect, focus upon the nest and its contents, it would be idle for us to single out 
the center and neglect the rest. As Terence said, Humani nihil a me alienum 
puto, we can say Aviarii nihil a nobis alienum. putamus, for we hold that nothing 
which pertains to birds is foreign to our interest. The Museum of Comparative 
Oology will devote itself to the fullest exploitation of the claims of the bird. Our 
choice of a title, then, is a matter of emphasis and distinction rather than of 
exclusion. Study of the bird afield, photography, the recording of data, whether 
