162 
THE CONDOR 
Vol. XVI 
differences having no objective reality. Whether the work of the systematist 
or that of the oologist is the more important is not material, after all ; their re- 
sults should be mutually helpful and supplementary and the real value of either 
must depend upon the ability of the individual and his capacity for accurately 
ascertaining and interpreting facts. 
It has been said of oology that “hardly any branch of the practical study 
of natural history brings the enquirer so closely in contact with many of its 
secrets,” and probably it is this feature which gives it so wide an appeal. Prob- 
ably a large majority of oologists find the most fascinating aspect of their pur- 
suit in investigations afield. For many students of nature, and their number is 
steadily increasing, this is enough, and it behooves us, as collectors, to enquire 
why we are not content with this phase only ; in other words, what is the real 
purpose behind our laborious collection, preparation and arrangement of the 
specimens themselves ? Doubtless there are various reasons : with certain indiv- 
iduals, happily few in number, let us hope, the formation of an egg collection is, 
at best, merely a pastime, or perhaps one manifestation of a very general hu- 
man weakness, namely, acquisitiveness, the desire to obtain simply for the 
gratification of possessing and, particularly, possessing “more than the 
other fellow.” To others an egg collection may make an esthetic appeal, 
through the beauty and infinite variety of the specimens, rather than their in- 
trinsic interest. While most of us might confess to a certain sympathetic un- 
derstanding of this latter point of view it will hardly be contended that the 
end justifies the means : as has often been pointed out, beads or marbles would 
do as well. 
As a matter of fact, it will be found that nearly all private collections in 
this country are what might be termed “faunal” collections, the primary ob- 
ject of the collector being, apparently, to obtain the eggs of all birds breeding 
or otherwise occurring within a certain region, say the United States or some 
section thereof or, more commonly, North America as a whole. Properly con- 
ducted this is doubtless a legitimate aim, but it seems to me that it falls so far 
short of the real story our cabinets should relate that it ought to be an alto- 
gether secondary consideration. Prom this point of view it is difficult to see 
how a collection of eggs representing, say, every species of summer resident 
within the District of Columbia, advances our sum of knowledge one whit be- 
yond an accurate record of the same eggs actually observed in situ. It is true 
that a local collection, of any kind, possesses a certain educational value, for a 
visual demonstration that such and such birds breed within the District makes 
a more lasting impression than a mere statement to that effect ; but such col- 
lections are more appropriate for local schools, museums or other similar insti- 
tutions. 
Is there, then, nothing to justify the oft-repeated claim that oology should 
be accorded the dignity of a scientific pursuit and that careful study of a col- 
lection of eggs may, in itself, afford information obtainable in no other way? 
Surely there is, provided, however, that the collection is built up on logical 
principles. Science has been defined as “knowledge gained and verified by 
exact observation and correct thinking, especially as methodically formulated 
and arranged in a rational system.” Let us note that this does not specify the 
kind or the quantity of knowledge required, but only how we should obtain 
and utilize it. Now it is obvious that some information may be obtained from 
a systematic collection of any particular class of objects, whether eggs, skins 
