Nov. , 1906 | 
EDITORIALS 
155 
expression of opinion. We invite relevant dis- 
cussion. — J. G. 
is EGG- In the May-Tune Bird-Lore, 
COLLECTING 1906, pages 95 to 98, appears an 
justifiable? article, entitled “The Amount 
of Science in Oology-”, which 
deserves careful attention from every egg- 
collector and oologist. The writer, Pro- 
fessor Thomas H. Montgomery of the 
University of Texas, arraigns oology as a 
science in a very convincing manner. He han- 
dles his subject admirably and we heartily 
agree with him in a good deal of what he says, 
tlio we as heartily dissent from his repeated 
implication that the bulk of egg-collecting is 
useless and should be stopped. 
A reply by Mr. Robert P. Sharpies, as 
printed in the September-October issue of 
Bird-Lore , pages 169-170, altho it contains 
some excellent points, still leaves Professor 
Montgomery with the best of the argument. 
Several more points have occurred to us, how- 
ever, which we hereby submit in defense of the 
collector and student of bird’s eggs and nests. 
Even in his contention as to the quantity of 
science in oology Professor Montgomery is not 
quite fair. He admits that there is a little, but 
dwells on the technicality that the term ex- 
cludes everything but what relates solelv to the 
colors, shapes, sizes and numbers of eggs. This 
is misleading, for we all now-a-days use the 
term oology as including everything pertaining 
to the eggs, nests, nesting places, and nesting 
habits of our birds. 
Then Professor Montgomery proceeds to be- 
little the value of whatever facts we can accumu- 
late in this field, partly on the grounds that 
the field is relatively small, and partly because 
the published results of the study of oology 
are in the nature of a bare record of numbers, 
sizes, descriptions of nest structure, etc.; he 
says this is not science, but merely a possible 
preparation. For science begins only when 
laws are established. 
What a juggler of words! He seems to have 
forgotten for the moment that the vast bulk of 
the work of embryologists, morphologists, and 
systematists is a “mere cataloging” of the 
structures of animals and plants. The work of 
His in embryology is referred to in comparison 
with the published descriptions and figures of 
egg-shells and nests; but we must declare that 
the distinction appears to us only one of sub- 
ject matter: both are records of structure. 
In belittling the importance of the accumula- 
tion of hoards of facts, Professor Montgomery 
makes a grave error. The majority of present- 
day scientists (tho perhaps we use the term 
wrongly!), many of them of eminence, content 
themselves with a simple accumulation of facts; 
they have constant reason to deplore the pre- 
mature deduction of laws (tho that is where 
science begins, according to our learned infor- 
mant!). The cataloging of a vastarrayof facts is 
often necessary to the safe establishment of even 
a single law in nature. As to the different laws 
determined, who is as yet in a position to 
judge anything of their relative values? 
We will admit that the field of oology ap- 
pears to be small as compared to the field of 
say, embryology. But it seems hardly needful 
to say that this in no way militates against the 
value of each fact recorded in the smaller field. 
The only difference resulting is in the relative 
sizes of the two masses of facts. Some of us 
can accomplish more, by nature of our capacity 
for work, in a small field than we can in a 
large one: we can gain a more adequate com- 
prehension of the smaller subject. Should we, 
whose ability happens to be limited, be de- 
barred from any participation in the contribu- 
tion to science, simply because we cannot enter 
the largest field? The field of oology-, in its 
broader sense, will be found extensive enough 
to occupy the average investigator for some 
time. And in spite of Professor Montgomery’s 
over-emphasis of the barrenness of oology, it 
without any violence to meaning involves the 
accumulation of data on habits, life history 
and general ecology, as well as on the mere 
egg-shell. 
After all, we cannot bring ourselves to be- 
lieve that the quantity of science in oology is 
the only deciding point as to whether or not 
egg-collecting is justifiable. We do not main- 
tain that all collectors pur-ue the subject with 
the sole purpose of obtaining knowledge. 
But we do say that the majority-, more or less 
incidentally perhaps, do obtain a considerable 
amount of information which becomes sooner 
or later available to .Science. 
Besides the scientific aspect of collecting, no 
matter what its valuation, there is the educa- 
tional feature so prominent in the development 
of many individuals. Many an advanced in- 
vestigator along more important and practical 
lines received his early training in accuracy 
and method thru securing and arranging his 
collection of eggs. We can name at lea^t a 
dozen eminent men of science who have de- 
clared to us that they got their first interest in 
things of Nature thru collecting birds’ eggs. 
We wonder if Professor Montgomery himself 
did not get his start in this way, too! 
The boy may find far worse play-time emplov- 
ment than in hunting the fields for a new bird, 
especially when he puts in Ins spare time at 
home studying his finds. Which is of most 
worth, a few bird skins and eggs, or A man? 
The educational value of egg-collecting is to 
our minds preeminent. 
Then there is the recreative phase which is 
not to be disparaged; and the pleasure to be 
der.ved from this pursuit. We must confess 
that we have gotten more complete satisfaction, 
in other words happiness, out of one vacation 
trip into the mountains after rare birds and 
eggs than out of our two years of University 
work in embryology! The tired business man 
who takes a week’s vacation in the spring, finds 
in oology a most restful pursuit. The mind- 
worn school-teacher, and we know several 
such, forgets all his troubles in a June jaunt 
into avian haunts. Both take in a few speci- 
mens, and about these cluster woodsy memo- 
ries which serve to refresh an evening hour 
now and then during the long work-a-day 
seison. There is an esthetic tinge which only 
one who has “been there” can appreciate. 
