Page:Condor16(4).djvu/3

 THE. CO. pB.R ?r.m?rjlZ. --. Volume XVI. July-August, 191q, A PLEA FOR COMPARATIVE OOLOGY By DR. T. W. RICHARDS, U.S. Navy ROBABLY there is no natural history pursuit which has had 'more active and enthusiastic devotees than that which involves the collection of birds' eggs and the study of nidification in general, though too often the latter is looked upon as an altogether secondary consideration. The egg collections in this country--and I am sure the same may be said of Europe and Australia--greatly outnumber the collections of skins, and consequently there are many collectors who are thoroughly familiar with the intricate variations in a large number of birds' eggs and yet are quite uninformed regarding the main anatomical or external characteristics of the birds themselves, excepting, perhaps, the commoner species of their own immediate localities. This has given rise to no little adverse criticism, sometimes thinly veiled, on the part of other investigators, and little as we may relish these admonitions it may as well be admitted frankly that there is much justice in this attitude. Over-special- ization in any subject, is bad, and I think that oologists should recognize this principle: he who takes a comprehensive interest in ornithology, and indeed, general zoology, and informs himself accordingly, will be not only much bet- ter equipped to pursue his own specialty, but will derive far more profit and enjoyment therefrom. Oology has its appropriate setting in the natural order of things and we cannot afford to ignore this environment. In conceding so much, however, it may be well to point out that there are certain issues, which, while easily leading to endless contention, are barren of useful results. Thus, the systematist who occupies himself so industriously in the--to him--paramount business of making "sub-species" has little sym- pathy for the individual who is content to "brood over birds' eggs," as Pro- fessor Newton puts it; while on the other hand, the oologist and field collector cannot be expected to wax enthusiastic over what, in his eyes, appears to be simply a fruitless attempt to form academic "characters'"out of imperceptible