Sept., 1916 
PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED 
207 
PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED 
A Study of the Structure of Feathers, 
with Reference to Their Taxonomic Sig- 
nificance. By Asa C. Chandler. [Univer- 
sity of California Publications in Zoology, 
vol. 13, no. 11, April 17, 1916, pp. 243-446, 
pis. 13-37, 7 text figs.] 
Except for a few preliminary pages, the 
work is divided into two portions. Part I, 
pp. 255-279, is devoted to the “General 
Morphology” of the feather, a large portion 
of which has been compiled from the liter- 
ature, or at least may be found there 
whether seen by Chandler or not. Though 
there are some references to the literature, 
and a bibliography appears at the end of 
the paper, little discrimination is shown as 
to what is original and what has been 
taken from other writers. Furthermore, it 
is my opinion that not all of the papers 
which should have been examined were 
read carefully if seen at all. In certain 
cases where credit is given, general text 
or reference books are sometimes quoted 
instead of the original literature. 
On page 248, Chandler announces a new 
word, “epiphyology”, as a general term for 
the “study of outgrowths”. I cannot see any 
need for this rather long and awkward 
word. It and such modifications as “epi- 
phyologic” and “epiphyological” occur here 
and there in the paper. In every case 
where I have made the attempt, the words 
feather, plumage, or plumage characters 
can be substituted with no loss in smooth- 
ness or explicitness that I can discover. 
The following generalization appears on 
p. 279, in italics: “The constitutional factor 
causing the morphologic specialization of 
feather structures for the production of 
color is inseparably hound together with the 
factor for the accompanying pigment, and if 
the latter is absent, the feather structures 
present the normal type of the species in 
which there are no color modifications . ” 
Barbules from the “violet speculum” of an 
albino mallard were examined by Chandler 
and furnished the basis for the conclusion 
thus reached. My experience has been 
otherwise in a number of cases. One of 
these I have found in the neck feathers of 
white domestic pigeons where pigmented 
varieties have iridescence. The highly 
modified form of the barbules in this iri- 
descent region which was described by me 
in 1903 is also present in white feathers 
from the same region. 
Part II is the taxonomic portion with a 
large amount of detailed description of 
feathers from various birds. There are 25 
plates which show many feather structures, 
mostly barbules from a number of species 
of birds. 
For some fifteen years I have believed 
that plumage characters might be useful 
in taxonomy, and I have some unfinished 
work of my own along this line. As stated 
by Chandler, there are precedents for at- 
tempting to classify various groups of or- 
ganisms on the basis of one set of charac- 
ters. In birds, at least, however, it appears 
to me unsound to attempt a phylogenetic 
classification of the great divisions, i. e„ 
the orders and families, with only one set 
of characters such as variations in feather 
structure and distribution. Instead of us- 
ing a single set of such very special char- 
acters in this detached way, it would be 
sounder, in my judgment, to compare all 
known characters, including feather char- 
acters when these are adequately under- 
stood. 
It must be granted that Chandler recog- 
nizes the need of using all characters, as is 
indicated in the last sentence of his paper 
and elsewhere; nevertheless he has fash- 
ioned a phylogenetic system on feather 
characters only, so far as his comparisons 
go. This is described as a modification of 
the system given by Knowlton and Ridg- 
way (1909). I can find no evidence in the 
paper that any characters except those of 
the plumage have been used directly by 
Chandler in elaborating his phylogenetic 
conclusions. 
As a result of his feather studies. Chand- 
ler concludes that the ratite birds are “prim- 
itively rather than secondarily flightless 
birds” (p. 388). There is no reference to 
the contrary evidence furnished by the wing 
and shoulder-girdle bones, for instance; 
and I am not convinced by his arguments 
that the feather structures themselves sup- 
port his position. The Crypturiformes are 
placed in association with the Galliformes 
with excellent arguments from their feath- 
er characters. There are also other argu- 
ments for this arrangement, and I would 
use them all. 
It has unfortunately been impracticable 
for me to verify the accuracy of the many 
figures appearing in the plates. So far as 
I can tell from memory of these structures, 
however, they are well done. It is my 
judgment that the descriptive material in 
this paper, which represents the author’s 
own studies, is a useful contribution to 
