Page:Condor16(4).djvu/4

 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- suits 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 pract!cal 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 fails so far short of the real story our cabinets should relate that it ought to be an alto- gether secondary consideration. From 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 exac 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