Page:EB1911 - Volume 19.djvu/695

 whether they be deposited in holes on the bare ground or in open nests in a tree. The eggs of the goshawk are white, but those of its small relation, the sparrowhawk, are always blotched, the nest of both being built precisely in the same kind of position, &c. In regard to the almost countless cases of spotted eggs in holes or covered nests, of which so many groups of birds furnish examples either wholly or in part, it has been suggested that the species in question has taken to hiding its eggs in times comparatively recent, and has not yet got rid of the ancestral habit of secreting and despositing pigment.

Length of Time of Incubation.—Most of the smaller Passeres seem to hatch their young in from 13-15 days. The shortest period, only 10 days, is recorded of the small Zosterops coerulescens; the largest, amounting to about 8 weeks, is that of some of the larger Ratitae, penguins and the condor. The best list, comprising birds of most groups, is that by W. Evans (Ibis, 1891, pp. 52-93; and 1892, pp. 55-58). Speaking broadly, the largest birds lay the largest eggs and require the longest time for incubation, but there are very many exceptions, and only birds of the same group can be compared with each other. The domestic fowl takes 21 days, but the pheasant, though so very nearly allied, takes 2 or 3 days longer, and even the small partridge requires 24 days. The mallard takes 26, the domestic duck 27, the musk duck 35 days, like most of the swans. The cuckoo, with 13 to 14 days, seems to have adapted itself to the short period of its foster parents.

The whole question still affords ample opportunities of experimental investigation and comparison. The condition of the newly hatched birds also varies extremely. The Nidifugae are born with their eyes open, are thinly clothed with neossoptiles of simple structure, leave the nest on the first day and feed themselves. The Nidicolae are born blind, remain a long time in the nest and have to be fed by their parents. Taken as a whole, the Nidifugae comprise most of the phylogenetically older groups; but many of these may include some closely allied members which have reached the developmental level of the Nidicolae: for instance, some Alcidae, the pigeons, Sphenisci, Tubinares, Ciconiae. For detail see : Classification. While in the first category the sense organs, tegumentary and locomotory organs are far advanced, these are retarded in the Nidicolae, the development of these structures being shifted on to the postembryonic period. Yet the length of the incubation is by no means always longer in the Nidifugae, when compared with equal-sized Nidicolae.

For further information the reader may be referred to: A. R. Wallace, “A Theory of Birds’ Nests,” ''Journ. of Travel and Nat.'' Hist., 1868, p. 73, reprinted in his Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection (London, 1870); A. McAldowie, “Observations on the Development and the Decay of the Pigment Layer in Birds' Eggs,” ''Journ. An. Phys.'' xx., 1886, pp. 225-237; W. Hewitson, Coloured Illustrations of the Eggs of British Birds (3rd ed., London, 1856); T. M. Brewer, North American Oology (4to, Washington, 1857); A. Lefèvre, Atlas des œufs des oiseaux d’Europe (8vo, Paris, 1845); F. W. Baedeker, Die Eier der europäischen Vögel (fol., Leipzig, 1863); E. Rey, Eier d. Vögel Mittel-Europa’s (Gera, 1905); A. Newton, Ootheca Wolleyana (8vo, London, 1864–1907); and articles on “Eggs” and “Nidification” in ''Dict. Birds'' (London, 1893–1896).

 NIEBUHR, BARTHOLD GEORG (1776–1831), German statesman and historian, son of (q.v.), was born at Copenhagen on the 27th of August 1776. From the earliest age young Niebuhr manifested extraordinary precocity, and from 1794 to 1796, being already a finished classical scholar and acquainted with several modern languages, he studied at the university of Kiel. After quitting the university he became private secretary to Count Schimmelmann, Danish minister of finance. But in 1798 he gave up this appointment and travelled in Great Britain, spending a year at Edinburgh studying agriculture and physical science. In 1799 he returned to Denmark, where he entered the state service; in 1800 he married and settled at Copenhagen. In 1804 he became chief director of the National Bank, but in September 1806 quitted this for a similar appointment in Prussia. He arrived in Prussia on the eve of the catastrophe of Jena. He accompanied the fugitive government to Königsberg, where he rendered considerable service in the commissariat, and was afterwards still more useful as commissioner of the national debt and by his opposition to ill-considered schemes of taxation. He was also for a short time Prussian minister in Holland, where he endeavoured without success to contract a loan. The extreme sensitiveness of his temperament, however, disqualified him for politics; he proved impracticable in his relations with Hardenberg and other ministers, and in 1810 retired for a time from public life, accepting the more congenial appointment of royal historiographer and professor at the university of Berlin.

He commenced his lectures with a course on the history of Rome, which formed the basis of his great work Römische Geschichte. The first two volumes, based upon his lectures, were published in 1812, but attracted little attention at the time owing to the absorbing interest of political events. In 1813 Niebuhr’s own attention was diverted from history by the uprising of the German people against Napoleon; he entered the Landwehr and ineffectually sought admission into the regular army. He edited for a short time a patriotic journal, the Prussian Correspondent, joined the headquarters of the allied sovereigns, and witnessed the battle of Bautzen, and was subsequently employed in some minor negotiations. In 1815 he lost both his father and his wife. He next accepted (1816) the post of ambassador at Rome, and on his way thither he discovered in the cathedral library of Verona the long-lost Institutes of Gaius, afterwards edited by Savigny, to whom he communicated the discovery under the impression that he had found a portion of Ulpian. During his residence in Rome Niebuhr discovered and published fragments of Cicero and Livy, aided Cardinal Mai in his edition of Cicero De Republica, and shared in framing the plan of the great work on the topography of ancient Rome by Christian C. J. von Bunsen and Ernst Platner (1773–1855), to which he contributed several chapters. He also, on a journey home from Italy, deciphered in a palimpsest at St Gall the fragments of Flavius Merobaudes, a Roman poet of the 5th century. In 1823 he resigned the embassy and established himself at Bonn, where the remainder of his life was spent, with the exception of some visits to Berlin as councillor of state. He here rewrote and republished (1827–1828) the first two volumes of his Roman History, and composed a third volume, bringing the narrative down to the end of the First Punic War, which, with the help of a fragment written in 1811, was edited after his death (1832) by Johannes Classen (1805–1891). He also assisted in August Bekker’s edition of the Byzantine historians, and delivered courses of lectures on ancient history, ethnography, geography, and on the French Revolution. In February 1830 his house was burned down, but the greater part of his books and manuscripts were saved. The revolution of July in the same year was a terrible blow to him, and filled him with the most dismal anticipations of the future of Europe. He died on the 2nd of January 1831.

Niebuhr’s Roman History counts among epoch-making histories both as marking an era in the study of its special subject and for its momentous influence on the general conception of history. “The main results,” says Leonhard Schmitz, “arrived at by the inquiries of Niebuhr, such as his views of the ancient population of Rome, the origin of the plebs, the relation between the patricians and plebeians, the real nature of the ager publicus, and many other points of interest, have been acknowledged by all his successors.” Other alleged discoveries, such as the construction of early Roman history out of still earlier ballads, have not been equally fortunate; but if every positive conclusion of Niebuhr’s had been refuted, his claim to be considered the first who dealt with the ancient history of Rome in a scientific spirit would remain unimpaired, and the new principles introduced by him into historical research would lose nothing of their importance. He suggested, though he did not elaborate, the theory of the myth, so potent an instrument for good and ill in modern historical criticism. He brought in inference to supply the place of discredited tradition, and showed the possibility of writing history in the absence of original records. By his theory of the disputes between the patricians and plebeians arising from original differences of race he drew attention to the immense importance of ethnological distinctions, and contributed to the revival of these divergences as factors in modern history. More than all, perhaps, since his conception of ancient Roman story made laws and manners of more account than shadowy lawgivers, he undesignedly influenced history by popularizing that conception of it which lays stress on institutions, tendencies and social traits to the neglect of individuals.

Niebuhr’s personal character was in most respects exceedingly attractive. His heart was kind and his affections were strong;