Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/30

 20 ville. As for Merrem s partitioning of the inferior groups there is less to be said in its praise as a whole, though credit must be given to his anatomical knowledge for leading him to the perception of several affinities, as well as differences, that had never before been suggested by superficial systematists. But it must be confessed that (chiefly, no doubt, from paucity of accessible material) he overlooked many points, both of alliance and the opposite, which since his time have gradually come to be admitted. For instance, he seems not to have been aware of the dis tinction, already shown by Nitzsch (as above mentioned) to exist, between the Swallows and the Swifts ; and, by putting the genus Coracias among his Oscines Tenuirostres 1 without any remark, proved that he was not in all respects greatly in advance of his age ; but on the other hand he most righteously judged that some species hitherto referred to the genera Certhia and Upiqm required removal to other positions, and it is much to be regretted that the very concise terms in which his decisions were given to the world make it impossible to determine with any degree of certainty the extent of the changes in this respect which he would have introduced. Had Merrem published his scheme on an enlarged scale, it seems likely that he would have obtained for it far more attention, and possibly some portion of acceptance. He had deservedly attained no little reputation as a descriptive anatomist, and his claims to be regarded as a systematic reformer would probably have been admitted in his lifetime. As it was his scheme apparently fell flat, and not until many years had elapsed were its merits at all generally recognized. Notice has next to be taken of a Memoir on the Employment of Sternal Characters in establishing Natural De Families among Birds, which was read by DB BLATNVILLE BUiiu- before the Academy of Sciences of Paris in 1815, 2 but not published in full for more than five years later (Journal de Physique . . . . et des Arts, xcii. pp. 185-215), though an abstract forming part of a Prodrome d une nouvellc. distribu tion du Regne Animal appeared earlier (op. cit., Ixxxiii. pp. 252, 253, 258, 259; and Bull. Sue. Philomath, de Paris, 1816, p. 110). This is a very disappointing performance, since the author observes that, notwithstanding his new classification of Birds is based on a study of the form of the sternal apparatus, yet, because that lies wholly within the body, he is compelled to have recourse to such outward characters as are afforded by the proportion of the limbs and the disposition of the toes even as had been the practice of most ornithologists before him ! It is evident that the features of the sternum on which De Blainville chiefly relied were those drawn from its posterior margin, which no very extensive experience of specimens is needed to show are of comparatively slight value; for the number of &quot; echancrures &quot; notches as they have sometimes been called in English w-hen they exist, goes but a very short way as a guide, and is so variable in some very natural groups as to be even in that short way occasionally mis leading. 3 There is no appearance of his having at all taken into consideration the far more trustworthy characters furnished by the anterior part of the sternum, as well as by the coracoids and the furcula. Still De Blainville made some advance in a right direction, as for instance by elevating the Parrots 4 and the Pigeons as &quot; Ordres,&quot; equal in rank to that of the Birds-of-Prey and some others. 1 He also placed the genus Todm in the same group, but it must be borne in mind that in his time a great many Birds were referred to that genus which (according to modern ideas) certainly do not belong to it, and it may well have been that he never had the opportunity of examining a specimen of the genus as nowadays restricted. &quot; Not 1812, as has sometimes been stated. 3 Cf. Philos. Transactions, 1869, p. 337, note. 4 This view of them had been long before taken by Willughby, but abandoned bv all later authors. According to the testimony of L Herminier (for whom see later) he divided the &quot; Passereaux &quot; into two sections, the &quot;faux &quot; and the &quot; vrais &quot;; but, while the latter were very correctly defined, the former were most arbitrarily separated from the &quot; Grimpeurs.&quot; He also split his Grallatores and Xatatores (practically identical with the Gndlse and Anseres of Linnaeus) each into four sections ; but he failed to see as on his own principles he ought to have seen that each of these sections was at least equivalent to almost any one of his other &quot; Ordres.&quot; He had, however, the courage to act up to his own professions in collocating the Rollers (Coracias) with the Bee-eaters (Merojis), and had the sagacity to surmise that Menura was not a Gallinaceous Bird. The greatest benefit conferred by this memoir is probably that it stimulated the efforts, presently to be mentioned, of one of hie pupils, and that it brought more distinctly into sight that other factor, originally dis covered by Merrem, of which it now clearly became the duty of systematizers to take cognizance. Following the chronological order we are here adopting, we next have to recur to the labours of NITZSCH, w r ho, in 1820, in a treatise on the Nasal Glands of Birds a subject that had already attracted the attention of JACOBSON (Nouv. Bull. /Soc. Philomath, de Paris, iii. pp. Jacob 267-269) first put forth in Meckel s Deidsches Archiv son - filr die Physiologic (vi. pp. 251-269) a statement of his general views on ornithological classification which were Nil/so based on a comparative examination of those bodies in various forms. It seems unnecessary here to occupy space by giving an abstract of his plan, 5 which hardly includes any but European species, because it was subsequently elaborated with no inconsiderable modifications in a way that must presently be mentioned at greater length. But the scheme, crude as it w r as, possesses some interest. It is not only a key to much of his later work to nearly all indeed that was published in his lifetime but in it are founded several definite groups (for example, Passerinse, and Picarise) that subsequent experience has shewn to be more or less natural ; and it further serves as additional evidence of the breadth of his views, and his trust in the teachings of anatomy ; for it is clear that, if organs so apparently insignificant as these nasal glands were found worthy of being taken into account, and capable of form ing a base of operations, in drawing up a system, it would almost follow that there can be no part of a Bird s organiza tion that by proper study would not help to supply some means of solving the great question of its affinities. This seems to the present writer to be one of the most certain general truths in Zoology, and is probably admitted in theory to be so by most zoologists, but their practice is opposed to it ; for, whatever group of animals be studied, it is found that one set or another of characters is the chief favourite of the authors consulted each generally taking a separate set, and that to the exclusion of all others, instead of effecting a combination of all the sets and taking the aggregate. That Nitzsch took this extended view is abundantly proved by the valuable series of ornithotomical observa tions which he must have been for some time accumulating, 5 This plan, having been repeated by Schopss in 1829 (op. cit., xii. p. 73), became known to Sir K. Owen in 1835, who then drew to it the attention of Kirby (Seventh Bridgewaler Treatise, ii. pp. 444, 445), and in the next year referred to it in his own article &quot; Aves &quot; in Todd s Ci/clopfedia of Anatomy (i. p. 266), so that Englishmen need no excuse for not being aware of one of Nitzsch s labours, though his more advanced work of 1829, presently to be mentioned, was not referred to by Sir R. Owen. 6 A very remarkable instance of this may be seen in the Si/stemo Avium, promulgated in 1830 by Wagler (a man with great knowledge of Birds) in his Natiirliches System der Amphibien (pp. 77-128). He took the tongue as his chief guide, and found it indeed an unruly member.