Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/43

 ORNITHOLOGY 33 which any interest that had hitherto been taken was a trifling pastime. Classification assumed a wholly different aspect. It had up to this time been little more than the shuffling of cards, the ingenious arrangement of counters in a pretty pattern. Henceforward it was to be the serious study of the workings of Nature in producing the beings we see around us from beings more or less unlike them, that had existed in bygone ages and had been the parents of a varied and varying offspring -our fellow- creatures of to day. Classification for the first time was something more than the expression of a fancy, not that it had not also its imaginative side. Men s minds began to figure to them selves the original type of some well-marked genus or Family of Birds. They could even discern dimly some generalized stock whence had descended whole groups that now differed strangely in habits and appearance their discernment aided, may be, by some isolated form which yet retained undeniable traces of a primitive structure. More dimly still visions of what the first Bird may have been like could be reasonably entertained ; and, passing even to a higher antiquity, the Reptilian parent whence all Birds have sprung was brought within reach of man s consciousness. But, relieved as it may be by reflexions of this kind dreams some may perhaps still call them the study of Ornithology has unquestionably become harder and more serious ; and a corresponding change in the style of investigation, followed in the works that remain to be considered, will be immediately perceptible. That this was the case is undeniably shewn by some stram. remarks of Canon TRISTRAM, who, in treating of the Alaiididse and Saxicolinse, of Algeria (whence he had recently brought a large collection of specimens of his own making), stated (Ibis, 1859, pp. 429-433) that he could &quot; not help feeling convinced of the truth of the views set forth by Messrs Darwin and Wallace,&quot; adding that it was &quot; hardly possible, I should think, to illustrate this theory better than by the Larks and Chats of North Africa.&quot; It is unnecessary to continue the quotation ; the few words just cited are enough to assure to their author the credit of being (so far as is known) the first ornithological specialist who had the courage publicly to recognize and receive the new and at that time unpopular philosophy. 1 But greater work was at hand. In June 1860 Prof. irker. PARKER broke, as most will allow, entirely fresh ground, and ground that he has since continued to till more deeply perhaps than any other zoologist, by communicating to the Zoological Society a memoir &quot; On the Osteology of Bal&niceps, &quot; subsequently published in that Society s Trans actions (iv. pp. 269-351). Of this contribution to science, as of all the rest which have since proceeded from him, may be said in the words he himself has applied (ut supra, p. 271) to the work of another labourer in a not distant field : &quot; This is a model paper for unbiassed observation, and freedom from that pleasant mode of supposing instead of ascertaining what is the true nature of an anatomical element.&quot; Indeed the study of this memoir, limited though it be in scope, could not fail to convince any one that it proceeded from the mind of one who taught with the authority derived directly from original knowledge, and not from association with the scribes a conviction that has become strengthened as, in a series of successive memoirs, the stores of more than twenty years silent observation and unremitting research 1 Whether Canon Tristram was anticipated in any other, and if so i:i what, branch of Zoology will be a pleasing inquiry for the historian of the future. 2 It is fair to state that some of Prof. Parker s conclusions respect ing T&amp;gt;aleeniceps were contested by the late Prof. J. T. Reinhardt (Overs. K. D. Vid. Selsk. Forhandlinyer, 1861, pp. 135-154 ; Ibis, 1862, pp. 158-175), and as it seems to the present writer not ineffec tually. Prof. Parker replied to his critic (Ibis, 1862, pp. 297-299). were unfolded, and, more than that, the hidden forces of the science of Morphology were gradually brought to bear upon almost each subject that came under discussion. These different memoirs, being technically monographs, have strictly no right to be mentioned in this place ; but there is scarcely one of them, if one indeed there be, that does not deal with the generalities of the study; and the influence they have had upon contemporary investigation is so strong that it is impossible to refrain from noticing them here, though want of space forbids us from enlarging on their contents. 3 Moreover, the doctrine of Descent with variation is preached in all seldom, if ever, conspicu ously, but perhaps all the more effectively on that account. There is no reflective thinker but must perceive that Morphology is the lamp destined to throw more light than that afforded by any other kind of study on the obscurity that still shrouds the genealogy of Birds as of other animals ; and, though as yet its illuminating power is admittedly far from what is desired, it has perhaps never shone more brightly than in Prof. Parker s hands. The great fault of his series of memoirs, if it may be allowed the present writer to criticize them, is the indifference of their author to formulating his views, so as to enable the ordinary taxonomer to perceive how far he has got, if not to present him with a fair scheme. But this fault is possibly one of those that are &quot; to merit near allied,&quot; since it would seem to spring from the author s hesitation to pass from observation to theory, for to theory at present belong, and must for some time belong, all attempts at Classification. Still it is not the less annoying and disappointing to the systematist to find that the man whose life-long application would enable him, better than any one else, to declare the effect of the alliances and differ ences that have been shewn to exist among various mem bers of the Class should yet be so reticent, or that when he speaks he should rather use the language of Morphology, which those who are not morphologists find difficult of correct interpretation, and wholly inadequate to allow of zoological deductions. 4 3 It may be convenient to our readers that a list of Prof. Parker s works which treat of ornithological subjects, in addition to the two above mentioned, should here be given. They are as follows : In the Zoological Society s Transactions, 25th November 1862, &quot;On the Osteology of the Gallinaceous Birds and Tinamous,&quot; v. pp. 149-241; 12th December 1865, &quot;On some fossil Birds from the On the Skull of the /Egithognathous Birds,&quot; Pt, II. x. pp. 251-314. In the Proceedings of the same Society, 8th December 1863, &quot; On the 1 systematic position of the Crested Screamer,&quot; pp. 511-518 ; 28th 1 February 1865, &quot;On the Osteology of Microglossa alecto,&quot; pp. ! 235-238. In the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 9th March 1865, &quot;On the Structure and Development of the Skull I in the Ostrich Tribe,&quot; pp. 113-183; llth February 1869, &quot;On the j Structure and Development of the Skull of the Common Fowl,&quot; pp. ! 755-807. In the Linnean Society s Transactions, 2d April 1874, ! &quot;On the Morphology of the Skull in the Woodpeckers and j Wrynecks,&quot; ser. 2, Zoology, i. pp. 1-22 ; 16th December 1875, &quot;On the Structure and Development of the Bird s Skull,&quot; torn, cit., pp. 99-154. In the Monthly Microscopical Journal for 1872, &quot;On the Structure and Development of the Crow s Skull,&quot; pp. 217-253 ; for 1 1873, &quot;On the Development of the Skull in the genus Turdus,&quot; pp. 102-107, and &quot;On the Development of the Skull in the Tit and Sparrow Hawk,&quot; parts i. and ii., pp. 6-11, 45-50. There is besides on the Structure and Development of the Shoulder-girdle and Sternum, of which pp. 142-191 treat of these parts in the Class Aves ; and our 1 readers will hardly need to be reminded of the article BIRDS in the present work (vol. iii. pp. 699-728). Nearly every one of this mar- j drawings made by the author himself. 4 As an instance, take the passages in which Turnix and Thinocorus ! are apparently referred to the JSgithognathse (Trans. Zool. Society, ix. 1 pp. 29lets&amp;gt;&amp;gt;qq. ; and supra, vol. iii. p. 700), a view which, as shewn by ! the author ( Transactions, x. p. 310), is not that really intended by him. XVIII. -- 5
 * the great work published by the Ray Society in 1868, A Monograph
 * vdlous series of contributions is copiously illustrated by plates from