Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/42

 32 ORNITHOLOGY Blanchard s investigations, if completed, would obviously have taken extraordinarily high rank among the highest contributions to ornithology. As it is, so much of them us we have are of con siderable importance ; for, in this unfortunately unfinished memoir, he describes in some detail the several differences which the sternum in a great many different groups of his Tropidosternii presents, and to some extent makes a methodical disposition of them accordingly. Thus he separates the Birds -of -Prey into three great groups (1) the ordinary Diurnal forms, including the Fakonidse and Vulturidse of the systematist of his time, but distinguishing the American Vultures from those of the Old World; (2) Qypogeranus, the SECRETARY-BIRD (q.v.) ; and (3) the Owls (infra, p. 88). Next lie places the PAKHOTS (q.v. ), and then the vast assemblage of &quot; Passereaux &quot; which he declares to be all of one type, even genera like Pipra (MAXAKIX, vol. xv. p. 455) and Pitta and con cludes with the somewhat heterogeneous conglomeration of forms, beginning with Cypselus (SwiFT, q.v.), that so many systematists have been accustomed to call Picariai, though to them as a group lie assigns no name. A continuation of the treatise was promised in a succeeding part of the Annalcs, but a quarter of a century has passed without its appearance, 1 Important as are the characters afforded by the sternum, that bone even with the whole sternal apparatus should obviously not be considered alone. To aid ornithologis s in their studies in this Eyton. respect, EYTOX, who for many years had been forming a collection of Birds skeletons, began the publication of a scries of plates repre senting them. The tirst part of this work, Ostcologia Avium, appeared early in 1859, and a volume was completed in 18G7. A Supplement was issued in 1869, and a Second Supplement, in three parts, between 1873 and 1875. The whole work contains a great number of figures of Birds skeletons and detached bones ; but they are not so drawn as to be of much practical use, and the accompanying letter-press is too brief to be satisfactory. That the eggs laid by Birds should offer to some extent characters of utility to systeir.atists is only to be expected, when it is con sidered that those from the same nest generally bear an extraordin ary family-likeness to one another, and also that in certain groups thg essential p culiarities of the egg-shell are constantly and dis tinctively characteristic. Thus no one who has ever examined the egg of a Duck or of a Tinamou would ever be in danger of not referring another Tinamou s egg or another Duck s, that he might see, to its proper Family, and so on with many others. Yet, as has been stated on a former occasion (BiRDS, vol. iii. p. 772), the expectation held out to oologists, and by them, of the benefits to be conferred upon Systematic Ornithol )gy from the study of Birds eggs, so far from being fulfilled, has not unfrequently led to dis appointment. But at the same time many of the shortcomings of Oology in this respect must be set down to the defective informa tion and observation of its votaries, among whom some have been very lax, not to say incautious, in wot ascertaining on due evidence the parentage of their specimens, and the author next to be named is open to this charge. After several minor notices that appeared D es in journals at various times, DES Muus in 1860 brought out at Murs. Paris his ambitious Traite general d Ooloyie Ornithologique au point de vuc dc la Classification, which contains (pp. 529-538) a : Systema Oologicum&quot; as the final result of his labours. In this scheme Birds are arranged according to what the author considered to be their natural method and sequence ; but the result exhibits some unions as ill-assorted as can well be met with in the whole range of tentative arrangements of the Class, together with some very unjustifiable divorces. Its basis is the classification of Cuvier, the modifications of which by Des Murs will seldom commend them selves to systematists whose opinion is generally deemed worth having. Few, if an}, of the faults of that classification are removed, and the improvements suggested, if not established by his successors, those especially of other countries than France, are ignored, or, as is the case with some of those of L Herminier, are only cited to be set aside. Oologists have no reason to be thankful to Des Murs, notwithstanding his zeal in behalf of their study. It is perfectly true that in several or even in many instances he acknowledges and deplores the poverty of his information, but this does not excuse him for making assertions (and such assertions are not (infrequent) based on evidence that is either wholly untrustworthy or needs further enquiry before it can be accepted (Ibis, 1860, pp. 331-335). This being the case, it would seem useless to take up further space by analysing the several proposed modifications of Cuvier s arrange ment. The great merit of the work is that the author shews the necessity of taking Oology into account when investigating the classification of Birds ; but it also proves that in so doing the paramount consideration lies in the thorough sifting of evidence as to the parentage of the eggs which are to serve as the building stones of the fabric to be erected. The attempt of Des Murs was 1 M. Blanchard a animadversions on tlie employment of external characters, and on trusting to observations on the habits of Birds, called forth a rejoinder from Mr Wallace (Ibis, 1864, pp. 36-41), who successfully shewed that t iey are not altogether to be despised. praiseworthy ; but in effect it has utterly failed, notwithstanding the encomiums passed upon it by friendly critics (Rev. dc Zoologic, 1860, pp. 176-183, 313-325, 370-373). - Until about this time systematists, almost without exception, may be said to have been wandering with no definite purpose. At least their purpose was indefinite compared with that which they now have before them. No doubt they all agreed in saying that they were pro secuting a search for what they called the True System of Nature ; but that was nearly the end of their agreement, for in what that True System consisted the opinions of scarcely any two would coincide, unless to own that it was some shadowy idea beyond the present power of mortals to reach or even comprehend. The Quinarians, who boldly asserted that they had fathomed the mystery of Creation, had been shewn to be no wiser than other men, if indeed they had not utterly befooled themselves ; for their theory at best could give no other explanation of things than that they were because they were. The conception of such a process as has now come to be called by the name of Evolution was certainly not novel ; but except to two men the way in which that process was or could be possible had not been revealed. 3 Here there is no need to enter into details of the history of Evolution ; but the annalist in every branch of Biology must record the eventful 1st of July 1858, when the nov celebrated views of DARWIN and Darwin Mr WALLACE were first laid before the scientific world, 4 &quot;d and must also notice the appearance towards the end of the &quot; a &quot; ace - following year of the former s Origin of Species, which has effected the greatest revolution of human thought in this or perhaps in any century. The majority of biologists who had schooled themselves on other principles were of course slow to embrace the new doctrine ; but their hesita tion was only the natural consequence of the caution which their scientific training enjoined. A few there were who felt as though scales had suddenly dropped from their eyes, when greeted by the idea conveyed in the now familiar phrase &quot;Natural Selection&quot;; but even those who had hitherto believed, and still continued to believe, in the sanctity of &quot; Species &quot; at once perceived that their life-long study had undergone a change, that their old position was seriously threatened by a perilous siege, and that to make it good they must find new means of defence. Many bravely maintained their posts, and for them not a word of blame ought to be expressed. Some few pretended, though the contrary was notorious, that they had always been on the side of the new philosophy, so far as they allowed it to be philosophy at all, and for them hardly a word of blame is too severe. Others after due deliberation, as became men who honestly desired the truth and nothing but the truth, yielded wholly or almost wholly to argu ments which they gradually found to be irresistible. But, leaving generalities apart, and restricting ourselves to what is here our proper business, there was possibly no branch of Zoology in which so many of the best informed and con sequently the most advanced of its workers sooner accepted the principles of Evolution than Ornithology, and of course the effect upon its study was very marked. New spirit was given to it. Ornithologists now felt they had something before them that was really worth investigating. Ques tions of Affinity, and the details of Geographical Distribu tion, were endowed with a real interest, in comparison with 2 In this historical sketch of the progress of Ornithology it has not been thought necessary to mention other oological works, since they have not a taxonomic bearing, and the chief of them have been already named (BiUDS, vol. iii. p. 774, note 1). 3 Neither Lamarck nor Robert Chambers (the now acknowledged author of Vestiges of Creation), though thorough evolutionists, rationally indicated any means whereby, to use the old phrase, &quot;the transmutation of species &quot; could be effected. 4 Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, vol. iii., Zoology, pp. 45-62.