A DICTIONAKY OF BIEDS Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive in 2010 witii funding from Boston Library Consortium IVIember Libraries littp://www.arcliiv6.org/details/dictionaryofbirdynewt A DICTIONARY OF BIEDS BY ALFRED NEWTON ASSISTED BY HANS GADOAV WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM RICHARD LYDEKKER CHARLES S. ROY B.A., F.E.S. M.A., F.K.S. AND ROBERT W. SHUFELDT, M.D. LATE UNITED STATES' AEMY LONDON ADAM AND CHAELES BLACK 1893-1896 BOSTON COLLEGE LIBRARY, CHESTNUT HILL, MASSb^ 341166 FRATRI EDUARDO CARISSIMO PER ANNOS PLUS QUAM QXTINQUAGINTA IN STUDIIS OENITHOLOGICIS DOMI PEEEGEE SITE DIG IN ANTEIS DILIGENTISSIMO CONDISCIPULO HOC OPUS D.D. AUCTOE DIE X. NOVEMBRIS MDCCCXCVI. PEEFACE This Dictionary has taken me far longer to complete than, when I began it, I had any notion that it would. Yet I do not regret the delay, since it has enabled me, though very briefly, to shew (Introduction, page 10 8, note) that the latest investi- gation has proved the newly-announced group Stereornithes, which seemed at first so important, to have no more claim to recognition than had that known as Odontornithes. The articles by Dr. Gadow have fully sustained the expectation of them expressed in my initial Note. Eead with the aid of the cross-references they contain and the Index that follows, they cannot fail to place the enquirer, be he beginner or advanced student, in a position he could not hope to occupy through the study of any other English book, and, what is better, a position whence he may extend his researches in many directions. It has been my object throughout to compress into the smallest compass the information intended to be conveyed. It would have been easier to double the bulk of the work, but the limits of a single volume are already strained, and to extend it to a second would in several ways destroy such usefulness as it may possess. Still I cannot but regret having to omit any special notice of several interesting subjects which bear more or less directly upon Ornithology. To name only a few of them — Insulation, Isomorphism, Eeversion and the PREFACE Struggle for Existence, as illustrated by Birds, were tempting themes for treatment, while Nomenclature, which owing to its contentious nature I have studied to avoid, and Protection, about which so much deplorable and mischievous misunder- standing exists, might well be said to demand consideration. It will be obvious to nearly every one that the number of names of Birds included in a work of this kind might be increased almost indefinitely. Whether it will ever be pos- sible for me to supply these additions, and others, must depend on many things, and not least on the reception accorded by the public to the present volume. A. N. Magdalene College, Cambridge, November, 1896. NOTANDA ET CORRIGENDA Page 9, line 10, for MoUy-mauk read MoUymawk. „ „ 23. ALECTORIDES, proposed as a Family of Grallatores by lUiger in 1811, is the same group as Temminck's of 1820, with the addition of Cereopsis ; but neither has anything in common with the Alectrides of Dumeril in 1806. Insert ALECTOROPODES, Huxley, P.Z.S. 1863, pp. 296, 299, and see Peristeeopodes, page 707. „ 11, line 28. Amadavats {Anadavadaea, or Anadavad, corrected in Index to Amadavad) had been brought from India to England by 1673 (WUlughby, Orn. p. 194, Engl. p. 266). ,, 14, ,, 11, /or cases reac^ causes. „ 21, ,, 39, for Harglta read Hargila. 30, after BEEF-EATER insert Pennant, Gen. B. p. 9 (1773), „ 34, line 28, for Eurinorhynchus read Eicrynorhynchus. „ 38, „ 4, dele his father. „ 45, „ 27, after wintering in insert Egypt. „ 58, „ 1, /or Oligomtodi rmt? Oligomyod^. „ 78, ,, 25, after printed as insert " Cassawarway," Coryat, Crudities, Pref. Verses, 1611 (iV. E. Diet. ii. p. 152), and then. „ 101, note 2, for Lammergeier read Lammergeter. „ 102, line 14, for back read beak. „ 104, „ Z'l,for Desmognathous reac^ ^githognathous. „ 105, „ 1, after ^a^ots — ^eZe the comma. „ 108, „ 41, a/ifer known by insert Albiu [N. H. Birds, ii. pi. 53, fig. 2), and subsequently by. „ 118, „ 1, after p. 176) insert and also to the Crowned - Crane (Balearica). „ 130, „ 26, after authors insert as Pennant in 1773 {Gen. B. p. 13). „ 130, add CUT-THROAT, see Weaver-bird. „ 136, „ 20, /or Mouth reacZ mouth. „ 139. To explanation of Fig. 1 add — L. follicle at base of villus. „ 159, line 15, for sixteen read fifteen. „ 159, „ 17, dele De. „ 162, lines 18-21. Lobivanelhis and some other forms have the structure said to be peculiar to the Dotterel alone. „ 165, line 3, for Mussulmans and Christians read Christians and Mussul- mans. „ 166, ,, last. Drepanis pacifica,, though nearly extinct, proves not to have been so when this sentence was written. A second species, D. h DICTIONARY OF BIRDS funerea, lias since been described from Maui {P.Z.S. 1893, p. 690). Page 179, line 9 from bottom, /or foramen ovale read fenestra ovalis. „ 189, „ 32, /or ark-line reac^ ark-like. „ 214, „ 10,/or 70 to 80 reacZ 57. „ 214, lines 21-23. The statement needs correction, as the Rhea also swims rivers. „ 215, line 2, after ERNE insert A.-S. Earn. „ 218, „ 6, for Miserythrus read Erythromachus. (See page 764, note 1.) „ 221, „ 30, after In insert 1809 Tucker {Orn. Danmon. p. lix.), and in. „ 222, „ 8. Examples are now known to have been killed later than 1852, see Auk, 1894, pp. 4-12. , , 223, „ 9, for thirty-eight read forty-two or forty-three. „ 229, „ 43. The iris in Harelda is said to be straw-colour in winter, dark hazel in summer. E. A. S. Elliot, Bull. B. 0. Olub, 20 May 1896. ,, 235, note 1. Falco, as a man's name, was in earlier use. Q. Sosius Falco was a Roman Consul circa a.d. 193 ; see Capitolinus in Jlist. August. Script. VI. " Pertinax " (Lugd. Bat. : 1671, p. 558). „ 238; line 28, for Luggur read Luggar. „ 255, „ 20. The statement as to nidification of Phoenicopterus was con- firmed by D'Orbigny, /tZe I. Geoffroy St.-Hilaire. „ 261, „ 20, for 45 per cent read ^^, and line 21 for 16 per cent read from 1 , _i_ 7-57 *'° 10-55" „ 269. Fig. 8 is accidentally inverted (cf. Marey, Vol des Ois. p. 140). „ 277, line 28, for about read in or before. „ 277, „ 30, after and insert Dexter, and dele Subsequently. „ 277 ,, 34, and note 2. Many other remains from this deposit have been described by Prof. Marsh, Am. Journ. Sc. (3) xxxvii. p. 331 ; xlii. p. 267 ; xliii. p. 543 ; and xlv. p. 169. „ 278, „ 5, for discovered read made known. „ 279, „ 4, for 20 read 12. „ 281, note 2, for Ameyhino read Ameghino. „ 284, line 41, for Haliietus read Haliaetus. „ 289, ,, 26. The statement as to Gallics ferrugineus being found on the Raj-peepla hills is erroneous {cf. Blanford, J.A.S.B. xxxvi. pt. 2, p. 199). „ 291, „ 26, for 1869 read 1862. „ 293, „ 31, for the elder Brandt read Illiger. „ 316, ,, 17, for Prosthemachcra read Prosthemadera. „ 320, „ 21, for Lophophanes read Lo2ohophaps. „ 323, „ 8, /or Oligomyodi rmc^ OLiGOMYODiE. ,, 327, ,, 6, for Prionoteles read Prionotelus. „ 338, note 5, for Meado-Walde, read Meade-Waldo, ,, 349, line 4, after Rhynchaia add , Rhynchops. „ 370, „ 10, /or American reacZ Canadian. „ 371. Insert GOONEY (prov. Engl, for a stupid or awkward person), a sailors' name for an Albatros. „ 376, line 44, for Nettapus read Nettopus. NOT AN DA ET CORRIGENDA Page 396, note 2. jVIr. 0. Grant {Cat. B. Br. Mus. xxii. p. 498) makes the Guan of Edwards to be Penelope cristata. „ 406, lines 13 et seqq. On the anatomy and affinities of Scopus, cf. Beddard, P.Z.S. 1884, p. 543. „ 415. HEATHER-BLEAT, a corruption of the A.-S. Hsefer-blsete, or Goat- like bleater {fide Skeat). „ 428, line last,/o?' Soldier-bibd read Blood-bird. „ 429, „ 12 and beneath figure, for llelithrejptes read Melithreptus. „ 434, „ 38, after habits insert except what Herr Hartert has told us {J.f.O. 1889, pp. 366-368). „ 456, lines 1-3, for *S. read I. „ 456, line 21, after known insert , except Oomatibis. „ 458, „ 37, dele and best-. „ 459, „ 29, after Anibulatores insert and Scansores. „ 465, lines 20, 21, transfer the latter from line 21 to line 20 after and, insert- ing also after those words. „ 482, line 4, for hiaticula read hiaticola. „ 487, „ ^1,for Syndactylism read Syndactylism, cf. Stndacttli. „ 496, note 2 (in early copies), after A. maxima, insert (from Stewart Island), A. liaasti. „ 513, „ 2. The derivation of Liverpool is now said to be from the A.-S. Iwfer, a rush or flag {cf. Britten and Holland, Diet. Engl. Plant Names, p. 304). „ 614, line 4, for Lepelaer read Lepelaar. „ 519, note 2, for Toueacoo read Todraco. „ 524, lines 26 et seqq. Further information on the subject is given by Mr. Eamsay, P.Z.S. 1868, pp. 49 et seqq. „ 525, note. The egg of M. superba has been figured by Mr. North, Nests and Eggs of Australian Birds, pi. x. „ 536, line 11, for Curlew or Godwit read Godwit or to Numenius hud- sonicus (Curlew). „ 536, „ 16, /w TurnbuU rmc^ Trumbull. „ 553, liaes 13, 14 of notes. The historic nesting-place of Parus cseruleus was reoccupied in 1895. „ 562, ,, 1-3. Mr. Clarke's Digest of the observations will be found in i^e^). Brit. Association (Liverpool Meeting), 1896. „ 563, „ 7-9. Gf. Peal, Rep. Aeronaut. Soc. 16, pp. 10-17 (1881), and Nature, xxiii. pp. 10, 11. Additional observations of Birds flying at great heights are recorded by Bray, op. cit. lii. p. 415, and West, op. cit. liii. p. 131. „ 600, line 18, for New Zealand read Western Australia. The Mountain- Duck of New Zealand is Hymenolsemus (page 843). „ 616, lines 28-35. The preparation V, c, here described, and diagrammatic- ally figured on the opposite page, proved not to be taken from any of the Trochilidse. Cf. Lucas and Gadow, Ibis, 1895, pp. 298-300. „ 654, line 3, for Argusanus read Argusianus. „ 686, „ 29, for Cyanorhynchus read Cyanorhamphus. „ 687, line 4, Parrots are not wanting in the Philippine Islands, as asserted. See Nature, li. p. 367. DICTIONAR V OF BIRDS Page, 692, note 1, for Tita read Tito. „ 698, line 8, for laryngeal read tracheal. „ 700, note 1. In the Exhibition of Venetian Art at the New Gallery in Eegent Street, 1894-5, No. 68 of the Catalogue was a picture, attributed to Vittorio Carpaccio, containiug a representation of a "japanned" Peacock. „ 703, line 12, dele male's. „ 703, note 2. The first of the three derivations assigned was the suggestion "by probability" of Selden in his 'Illustrations' of Drayton's poem (p. 148). Being almost impossible, and unsupported by evidence, it is the derivation most popularly accepted. „ 711, line 11, and p. 716, last line of text, for Sayornis read Empidonax. „ 732, lines 16-18. The statement as to old feathers changing their colour Ls probably erroneous (see Auk, 1896, pp. 148-150 ; Bidl. Am. 3Ius. iV. H. viii. pp. 1-44). „ 734, line 18 of notes, for Eurinorhynclms read Eurynorhynchus. „ 743, „ 28,/OT- 173, 177 read 272, 277. „ 744, ,, 8, for anterior read posterior. „ 754, „ 4, after Dutch i7ise7-t name for the Pintail. „ 789, note 2, for Acarthidositta read Acanthidositta. „ 814, line 6, for p. cxxxix. read pp. xi. cxxxix. pi. vii. „ 814, „ 15. The term Or?wY7iZir« is used by Furbringer, see Introduction, page lOS. „ 820, „ 11. Chauna derbiana is the true C. c7iavaria (Linn.), while the species commonly so called is C. cristata {cf. Salvadori, Cat. B. Brit. Mus. xxvii. pp. 4-7). „ 843, „ 2, after the insert Mountaia- or. „ 887, „ 24, after for insert Myzantlia, garrida, M. flavigula, and ; for sanguinoleuta read sangimiolenta. „ 893, note 2. Local difference ia Birds' notes was noticed in 1809 by Tucker (Orn. Danvion. p. Ixxxiv.) „ 896, „ 1, after designation add ; but Mr. Barrows in his able work {The English Sparrow in North America.. Washington : 1889) continues the misleading name. „ 905, line 34. Clearing away the matrix of the specimen has since shewn this septum (cf. Introduction, page lOS, note). INTEODUCTION Ornithology in its proper sense is the methodical study and consequent knowledge of Birds with all that relates to them ; but the difficulty of assigning a limit to the commencement of such study and knowledge gives the word a very vague meaning, and practically procures its application to much that does not enter the domain of Science. This elastic applica- tion renders it impossible in any sketch of the history of Ornithology to draw a sharp distinction between works that are emphatically ornitho- logical and those to which that title can only be attached by courtesy ; for, since Birds have always attracted far greater attention than any other group of animals with which in number or in importance they can be compared, there has grown up concerning them a literature of corre- sponding magnitude and of the widest range, extending from the recondite and laborious investigations of the morphologist and anatomist to the casual observations of the sportsman or the schoolboy. The chief cause of the disproportionate amount of attention which Birds have received plainly arises from the way in which so many of them familiarly present themselves to us, or even (it may be said) force themselves upon our notice. Trusting to the freedom from danger conferred by the power of flight, most Birds have no need to lurk hidden in dens, or to slink from place to place under shelter of the inequalities of the ground or of the vegetation which clothes it, as is the case with so many other animals of similar size. Beside this, a great number of the Birds which thus display tliemselves freely to our gaze are conspicuous for the beauty of their plumage ; and there are very few that are not remarkable for the grace of their form. Some Birds again enchant us with their voice, and others administer to our luxuries and wants, while there is scarcely a species which has not idiosyncrasies that are found to be of engaging interest the more we know of them. Moreover, it is clear that the art of the fowler is one that must have been practised from the very earliest times, and to follow that art with success no inconsiderable amount of acquaintance with the haunts and habits of Birds is a necessity. Owing to one or another of these causes, or to the combination of more than one, it is not surprising that the observation of Birds has been from a very remote period a favourite pursuit among nearly all nations, and this observation has by degrees led to a study more or less framed on methodical principles, finally reaching the dignity of a science, and a study that has its votaries DICTIONARY OF BIRDS in almost all classes of the population of every civilized country. In tlie ages during which, intelligence dawned on the world's ignorance, or before experience had accumulated, and even now in those districts that have not yet emerged from the twilight of a knowledge still more imperfect than is our own at present, an additional and perhaps a stronger reason for paying attention to the ways of Birds existed, or exists, in their association with the cherished beliefs handed down from generation to generation among many races of men, and not infrequently interwoven in their mythology.^ Moreover, though Birds make a not unimportant appearance in the earliest written records of the human race, the painter's brush has preserved their counterfeit presentment for a still longer period. What is asserted — and that, so far as the writer is aware, without contradiction — by Egyptologists of the highest repute to be one of the oldest pictures in the world is a fragmentary fresco taken from a tomb at Maydoom, and happily deposited, though in a decaying condition, in the Museum at Boolak. This picture is said to date from the time of the third or fourth dynasty, some three thousand years before the Christian era. In it are depicted with a marvellous fidelity, and thorough appreciation of form and colouring (despite a certain conventional treatment), the figures of six Geese. Four of these figures can be unhesitatingly referred to two species {An&er erythropus and A. ruficollis) well known at the present day ; and if the two remaining figures, belonging to a third and larger species, were re-examined by an expert they would very possibly be capable of determination with no less certainty.^ In later ages the representations of Birds of one sort or another in Egyptian paintings and sculptures become countless, and the bassi-rilievi of Assyrian monuments, though mostly belonging of course to a subsequent period, are not without them ; but so rudely designed as to be generally unrecognizable.^ No figures of Birds, however, seem yet to have been found on the incised stones, bones or ivories of the prehistoric races of Europe. It is of course necessary to name Aristotle (b.c. 385-322) as the first serious author on Ornithology with whose writings we are acquainted, but even he had, as he tells us, predecessors ; and, looking to that portion of his works on animals which has come down to us, one finds that, though more than 170 sorts of Birds are mentioned,* yet what is said of them amounts on the whole to very little, and this consists more of desultory ■^ For instances of this among Greeks and Eomans almost any work on " Classical Antiquities " may be consulted, while as regards the superstitions of barbarous nations the authorities are far too numerous to be here named. ^ A facsimile of the picture is, or was a few years ago, exhibited at the Museum of Science and Art in London, and the portion containing the figures of the Geese has been figured by Mr. Loftie {Ride in Egypt, p. 209). I owe to that gentleman's kindness the opportunity of examining a copy made on the spot by an accomplished artist, as well as information that it is No. 988 of Mariette's Catalogue. ^ Of. W. Houghton ' On the Birds of the Assyrian Monuments and Records, ' Trans. Soc. Bibl. Archasol. viii. pp. 42-142, 13 pis. (1883). The author being but a poor ornithologist, his determination of the figures cannot be trusted. As to the linguistic value of his labours I am not competent to speak. "* This is Sundevall's estimate ; Drs. Aubert and Wimmer in their excellent edition of the 'laropiai irepl ^i^uv (Leipzig : 1868) limit the number to 126. INTRODUCTION j observations in illustration of his general remarks (whicli are to a con- siderable extent physiological or bearing on the subject of reproduction) than of an attempt at a connected account of Birds. Some of these observations are so meagre as to have given plenty of occupation to his many commentators, who with varying success have for more than three hundred years been endeavouring to determine what were the Birds of which he wrote ; and the admittedly corrupt state of the text adds to their difficulties. One of the most recent of these commentators, the late Prof. Sundevall — equally proficient in classical as in ornithological know- ledge— was, in 1863, compelled to leave more than a score of the Birds unrecognized. Yet it is not to be supposed that in what survives of the great philosopher's writings we have more than a fragment of the know- ledge possessed by him, though the hope of recovering his Zojlko, or his ' AvarofjiLKd, in which he seems to have given fuller descriptions of the animals he knew, can be hardly now entertained. A Latin translation by Gaza of Aristotle's existing zoological work was printed at Venice in 1503. Another version, by Scaliger, was subsequently published. Two wretched English translations have appeared.^ Next in order of date, though at a long interval, comes Gains Plinius Secundus, commonly known as Pliny the Elder, who died A.D. 79, author of a general and very discursive Historia Naturalis in thirty-seven books, of which most of Book X. is devoted to Birds. A considerable portion of Pliny's work may be traced to his great predecessor, of whose information he freely and avowedly availed himself, while the additions thereto made cannot be said to be, on the whole, improvements. Neither of these authors attempted to classify the Birds known to them beyond a very rough and for the most part obvious grouping. Aristotle seems to recognize eight principal groups : — (1) Gampsonyches, approximately equivalent to the Accipitres of Linnaeus ; (2) Scolecophaga, containing most of what would now be called Oscines, excepting indeed the (3) Acantho- phaga, composed of the Goldfinch, Siskin and a few othors ; (4) Scnipo- phaga, the Woodpeckers ; (5) Peristeroide, or Pigeons ; (6) Schizopoda, (7) Steganopoda and (8) Barea, nearly the same respectively as the Linnsean Grallse, Anseres and Gallinse. Pliny, relying wholly on characters taken from the feet, limits himself to three groups — without assigning names to them — those which have " hooked tallons, as Hawkes ; or round long clawes, as Hennes ; or else they be broad, flat, and whole-footed, as Geese and all the sort in manner of water-foule " — to use the words of Philemon Holland, who, in 1601, published a quaint and, though condensed, yet fairly faithful English translation of Pliny's work.^ About a century later came ^Elian, who died about a.d. 140, and compiled in Greek (though he was an Italian by birth) a number of miscellaneous observations on the peculiarities of animals. His work is a kind of commonplace book kept without scientific discrimination. A 1 By Thomas Taylor in 1809, and Cresswell in 1862. - The French translation by Ajasson de Grandsagne, with notes by Cuvier (Paris: 1830), is very good for the time. An English translation by Bostock and Riley appeared between 1855 and 1857. Sillig's edition of the original text (Gotha : 1851- 1853) seems to be the best. DICTIONARY OF BIRDS considerable number of Birds are mentioned, and something said of almost each of tbem ; but that something is too often nonsense — according to modern ideas — tbough occasionally a fact of interest may therein be found. It contains numerous references to former or contemporary writers whose works have perished, but there is nothing to shew that they were wiser than ^lian himself. The twenty-six books Be Animalibus of Albertus Magnus (Groot), who died A.D. 1282, were printed in 1478 ; but were apparently already well known from manuscript copies. They are founded on the works of Aristotle, many of whose statements are almost literally repeated, and often without acknowledgment. Occasionally Avicenna, or some other less-known author, is quoted ; but it is hardly too much to say that the additional information is almost worthless. The twenty-third of these books is De Avibus, and therein a great number of Birds' names make their earliest appearance, few of which are without interest from a philo- logist's if not an ornithologist's point of vieAv, but there is much diflSculty in recognizing the species to which many of them apply. In 1485 was printed the first dated copy of the volume known as the Ortus Sanitatis, to the popularity of which many editions testify. Though said by its author, Johann Wonnecke von Caub (Latinized as Johannes de Cuba),^ to have been composed from a study of the collections formed by a certain nobleman who had travelled in Eastern Europe, Western Asia and Egypt — possibly Breidenbach,^ an account of whose travels in the Levant was printed at Mentz in 1486 — it is really a medical treatise, and its zoological portion is mainly an abbreviation of the writings of Albertus Magnus, with a few interpolations from Isidorus of Seville (who flourished in the beginning of the seventh century, and was the author of many books highly esteemed in the Middle Ages), and a work known as Physiologus.^ The third tractatus of this volume deals with Birds — including among them Bats, Bees and other flying creatures ; but as it is the first printed book in which figures of Birds are introduced it merits notice, though most of the illustrations, which are rude woodcuts, fail, even in the coloured copies, to give any precise indication of the species intended to be represented. The scientific degeneracy of this work is manifested as much by its title {Ortus for Hortus) as by the mode in which the several subjects are treated ; ^ but the revival of learning was at hand, and ^ On this point see G. A. Pritzel, Botan. Zeitung, 1846, pp. 785-790, and Thes. Literat. Botanicse (Lipsise : 1851), pp. 349-352. "^ I owe this suggestion to my late good friend, the eminent bibliographer, Henry Bradshaw. 2 See the excellent account of this curious work by Prof. Land of Leyden (Enci/cl. Brit. ed. 9, xix. pp. 6, 7). * Absurd as much that we find both in Albertus Magnus and the Ortus seems to modern eyes, if we go a step lower in the scale and consult the " Bestiaries " or treatises on animals which were common from the twelfth to the fourteenth century we shall meet with many more absurdities. See for instance that by Philippe de Thauu (Philippus Taonensis), dedicated to Adelaide or Alice, queen of Henry I. of England, and probably written soon after 1121, as printed by the late Mr. Thomas Wright, in his Popular Treatises on Science vyritten during the Middle Ages (London : 1841). Perhaps the I)e Naturis Renim lihri duo of Alexander Neckam {ob. 1217), the foster-brother of Richard Cceur de Lion, may be excepted, for therein (lib. i. INTRODUCTION William Turner, a Northumbrian, while residing abroad to avoid persecu- tion at home, printed at Cologne in 1544 the first commentary on the Birds mentioned by Aristotle and Pliny conceived in anything like the spirit that moves modern naturalists, ^ In the same year and from the same press was issued a Dialocjus de Avibus by Gybertus Longolius, and in 1570 Caius brought out in London his treatise De rariorum animalium atque stirpium historia. In this last work, small though it be, ornithology has a good share ; and all three may still be consulted with interest and advantage by its votaries.- Meanwhile the study received a great impulse from the appearance, at Zurich in 1555, of the third book of the illustrious Conrad Gesner's Historia Animalium " qvi est de Auium natura," and at Paris in the same year of Pierre Belon's (Bellonius) Histoire de la nature des Oyseaux. Gesner brought an amount of erudition, hitherto unequalled, to bear upon his subject ; and, making due allowance for the time in which he wrote, his judgment must in most respects be deemed excellent. In his work, however, there is little that can be called systematic treat- ment. Like nearly all his predecessors since ^lian, he adopted an alphabetical arrangement,^ though this was not too pedantically preserved, and did not hinder him from placing together the kinds of Birds which he supposed (and generally supposed rightly) to have the most resemblance to that one whose name, being best known, was chosen for the headpiece (as it were) of his particular theme, thus recognizing to some extent the principle of classification.'^ Belon, with perhaps less book-learning than his contemporary, was evidently no mean scholar, and undoubtedly had more practical knowledge of Birds — their internal as well as external structure. Hence his work contains a far greater amount of original matter; and his personal observations made in many countries, from England to Egypt, enabled him to avoid most of the puerilities which disfigure other works of his own or of a preceding age. Beside this, Belon disposed the Birds known to him according to a definite system, which (rude as we now know it to be) formed a foundation on which several of his successors were content to build, and even to this day traces of its influence may still be discerned in the arrangement followed by writers who have faintly appreciated the principles on which modern taxonomers rest the outline of their schemes. Both his work and that of Gesner were capp. xxiii.-lxxx.) is a good deal about bii'ds which is not altogether nonsense. This work was edited for the Rolls Series, ia 1863, by the same Mr. Wright. ^ This was reprinted at Cambridge in 1823 by the late Dr, George Thackeray, - The Seventh of Wotton's De differentiis animalium Libri Decern, published at Paris in 1552, treats of Birds ; but his work is merely a compilation from Aristotle and Pliny, with references to other classical writers who have more or less incidentally mentioned Birds and other animals. The author in his preface states — " Veterum scriptorum sententias in unum quasi cumulum coaceruaui, de meo nihil addidi." Nevertheless he makes some attempt at a systematic arrangement of Birds, which, according to his lights, is far from despicable. ^ Even at the present day it may be shrewdly suspected that not a few orni- thologists would gladly follow Gesner's plan in their despair of seeing, in their own time, a classification which would really deserve the epithet scientific. ^ For instance, under the title of " Accipiter " we have to look, not only for the Sparrow-Hawk and Gos-Hawk, but for many other birds of the Family (as we now call it) removed comparatively far from those species by modern ornithologists. DICTIONAR Y OF BIRDS illustrated with, woodcuts, many of wliicli display much, spirit and regard to accuracy. Belon, as lias just been said, had a knowledge of the anatomy of Birds, and he seems to have been the first to institute a direct comparison of tbeir skeleton with that of Man ; but in this respect he only anticipated by a few years the more precise researches of Volcher Goiter, a Frisian, who in 1573 and 1575 published at Nuremberg two treatises, in one of wbich the internal structure of Birds in general is very creditably de- scribed, while in the other the osteology and myology of certain forms is given in considerable detail, and illustrated by carefully-drawn figures. The first is entitled Externarum etinternaruinimncipaliumhumani corporis Tabulss, &c., while the second, which is the most valuable, is merely appended to the Lectiones Gahrielis FaUopii de partibus similaribus humani corporis, &c., and thus, the scope of each work being regarded as medical, the author's labours were wholly overlooked by the mere natural-historians who followed, though Goiter introduced a table, " De differentiis Auiuvi" furnishing a key to a rough classification of such Birds as were known to him, and this, as nearly the first attempt of the kind, deserves notice here. Gontemporary with these three men was Ulysses Aldrovandus, a Bolognese, who wrote an Historia Naturalium in sixteen folio volumes, most of which were not printed till after his death in 1605 ; but the three on Birds appeared between 1599 and 1603. The work is almost wholly a compilation, and that not of the most discriminative kind, while a peculiar jealousy of Gesner is displayed throughout, though his statements are very constantly quoted — nearly always as those of " Ornithologus," his name appearing but few times in the test, and not at all in the list of authors cited. With certain modifications in principle not very important, but characterized by much more elaborate detail, Aldrovandus adopted Belon's method of arrangement, but in a few respects there is a manifest retrogression. The work of Aldrovandus was illustrated by copper plates, but none of his figures approach those of his immediate predecessors in character or accuracy. Nevertheless the book was eagerly sought, and several editions of it appeared.^ Mention must be made of a medical treatise by Gaspar Schwenckfeld, published at Liegnitz in 1603, under the title of TJieriotropheum Silesia, the fourth book of which consists of an " Aviarium Silesise," and is the earliest of the ornithological works we now know by the name of Fauna. The author was acquainted with the labours' of his predecessors, as his list of over one hundred of them testifies. Most of the Birds he describes are characterized with accuracy sufficient to enable them to be identified, and his observations upon them have still some interest ; but he was innocent of any methodical system, and was not exempt from most of the professional fallacies of his time.- ^ The Historia Naturalis of John Johnstone or Jonston, of Scottish descent but by birth a Pole {Diet. Nat. Biogr. xxx. pp. SO, 81), ran through several editions during the seventeenth century, but is little more than an epitome of the worlc of Aldrovandus. ^ The Hierozoicon of Bochart — a treatise on the animals named in Holy Writ — was published in 1G19. INTRODUCTION 7 Hitherto, from the nature of the case, the works aforesaid treated of scarcely any but the Birds belonging to the orhis veteribus notus ; but the geographical discoveries of the sixteenth century began to bear fruit, and many animals of kinds unsuspected were, about one hundred years later, made known. Here there is only space to name Bontius, Clusius, Hernandez ^ (or Fernandez), Marcgrave, Nieremberg and Piso,^ whose several works describing the natural products of both the Indies — whether the result of their own observation or compilation — together with those of Olina and Worm, produced a marked effect, since they led up to what may be deemed the foundation of scientific Ornithology .^ This foundation was laid by the joint labours of Francis Willughby (born 1635, died 1672) and John Kay (born 1628, died 1705), for it is impossible to separate their share of work in Natural History more than to say that, while the former more especially devoted himself to zoology, botany was the favourite pursuit of the latter. Together they studied, together they travelled and together they collected. Willughby, the younger of the two, and at first the other's pupil, seems to have gradually become the master ; but dying before the promise of his life was fulfilled, his writings were given to the world by his friend Eay, who, adding to them from his own stores, published the Ornithologia in Latin in 1676, and in English with many emendations in 1678. In this work Birds generally were grouped in two great divisions — " Land-Fowl " and "Water-Fowl," — the former being subdivided into those which have a crooked beak and talons and those which have a straighter bill and claws, while the latter was separated into those which frequent waters and watery places and those that swim in the water — each subdivision being further broken up into many sections, to the whole of which a key was given. Thus it became possible for almost any diligent reader without much chance of error to refer to its proper place nearly every bird he was likely to meet with. Eay's interest in ornithology con- tinued, and in 1694 he completed a Synopsis Methodica Avium, which, through the fault of the booksellers to whom it was entrusted, was not published tiU 1713, when Derham gave it to the world.* Two years after Ray's death, Linnaeus, the great reformer of Natural History, was born, and in 1735 appeared the first edition of the celebrated Systema Naturse. Successive editions of this work were produced under ^ The earliest work of Hernandez, published at Mexico in 1615, copies of which are very scarce, has been reprinted and edited by Dr. Leon (8vo, Morelia : 1888). ^ For Lichtenstein's determination of the Birds described by Marcgrave and Piso see the Abhandlungen of the Berlin Academy for 1817 (pp. 155 et seqq.) ^ The earliest list of British Birds seems to be that in the Pinax Rerum Katuralium of Christopher Merrett, published in 1666, and to be again mentioned presently. In 1668 appeared the Onomasticon Zooicon of Walter Charleton, which contains some information on ornithology. An enlarged edition of the latter, under the title of Exercitationes, &c., was published in 1677 ; but neither of these writers is of much authority. In 1684 Sibbald in his Scotia illustrata published the earliest Fauna of Scotland. * To this was added a supplement by Petiver on the Birds of Madras, taken from pictures and information sent him by one Edward Buckley of Fort St. George, being the first attempt to catalogue the Birds of any part of the British possessions in India. DICTIONARY OF BIRDS its author's supervision in 1740, 1748, 1758 and 1766. Impressed by the belief that verbosity was the bane of science, he carried terseness to an extreme which frequently created obscurity, and this in no branch of zoology more than in that which relates to Birds. Still the practice introduced by him of assigning to each species a diagnosis by which it ought in theory to be distinguishable from any other known species, and of naming it by two words — the first being the generic and the second the specific term, was so manifest an improvement upon anything which had previously obtained, that the Linnsean method of differentiation and nomenclature established itself before long in spite of all opposition, and in principle became almost universally adopted. The opposition came of course from those who were habituated to the older state of things, and saw no evil in the cumbrous, half-descriptive half-designative titles which had to be employed whenever a species was to be spoken of or written about. The supporters of the new method were the rising generation of naturalists, many of whose names have since become famous, but among them were some whose admiration of their chief carried them to a pitch of enthusiasm which now seems absurd. ^ Careful as Linneeus was in drawing up his definitions of groups, it was immediately seen that they occasionally comprehended creatures whose characteristics contradicted the prescribed diagnosis. His chief glory lies in his having reduced, at least for a time, a chaos into order, and in his shewing both by precept and practice that a name was not a definition. In his classification of Birds he for the most part followed Bay, and where he departed from his model he seldom improved upon it. In 1745 Barrere brought out at Perpignan a little book called Ornithologiss Specimen nouiim, and in 1752 Mohring published at Aurich one still smaller, his Avium Genera. Both these works (now rare) are manifestly framed on the Linnaean method, so far as it had then reached ; but in their arrangement of the various forms of Birds they diftered greatly from that which they designed to supplant, and they obtained little success. Yet as systematists their authors were no worse than Klein, whose Historise Avium Prodromus, appearing at Liibeck in 1750, and Stemmata Avium at Leipzig in 1759, met with considerable favour in some quarters. The chief merit of the latter work lies in its forty plates, whereon the heads and feet of many Birds are indifferently hgured.2 But, while the successive editions of Linnreus's great work were revolutionizing Natural History, and his example of j^recision in language was producing excellent effect on scientific writers, several other authors were advancing the study of Ornithology in a very different way — a way that pleased the eye even more than his labours were pleasing the mind. Between 1731 and 1743 Mark Catesby brought out in London his ^ Such an one was Rafinesque, in many respects a fantastic aiitlior. Simple as the principle of binomial nomenclature looks, its practice is not so easy, and there have not been wanting of late years quasi-seientitic writers to mistake it wholly. ^ After Klein's death his Prodromus, written in Latin, had the unwonted fortune of two distinct translations into German, published in the same year, 1760, the one at Leipzig and Liibeck by Behn, the other at Danzig by Reyger — each of whom added more or less to the original. INTRODUCTION Natural History of Carolina — two large folios containing highly-coloured plates of the Birds of that colony, Florida and the Bahamas — the fore- runners of those numerous costly tomes which will have to be mentioned presently at greater length.^ Eleazar Albin between 1738 and 1740 produced a Natural History of Birds in three volumes of more modest dimensions, seeing that it is in quarto ; but he seems to have been ignorant of Ornithology, and his coloured plates are greatly inferior to Catesby's. Far better both as draughtsman and as authority was George Edwards, who in 1743 began, under almost the same title as Albin, a series of plates with letterpress, which was continued by the name of Gleanings of Natural History, and finished in 1760, when it had reached seven parts, forming four quarto volumes, the figures of which are nearly always quoted with approval.^ The year which saw the works of Edwards completed was still further distinguished by the appearance in France, where little had been done since Belon's days,^ in six quarto volumes, of the Ornithologie of Mathurin Jacques Brisson — a work of very great merit so far as it goes, for as a descriptive ornithologist the author stands even now unsurpassed ; but it must be said that his knowledge, according to internal evidence, was con- fined to books and to the external parts of Birds' skins. It was enough for him to give a scrupulously exact description of such specimens as came under his eye, distinguishing these by prefixing two asterisks to their name, using a single asterisk where he had only seen a part of the Bird, and leaving unmarked those that he described from other authors. He also added information as to the Museum (generally Reaumur's, of which he had been in charge) containing the specimen he described, act- ing on a principle which would have been advantageously adopted by many of his contemporaries and successors. His attempt at classification was certainly better than that of Linnaeus ; and it is rather curious that the researches of the latest ornithologists point to results in some degree comparable with Brisson's systematic arrangement, for they refuse to keep the Birds-of-Prey at the head of the Class Aves, and they require the establishment of a much larger number of " Orders " than for a long while had been thought advisable. Of such " Orders " Brisson had twenty-six, and he gave Pigeons and Poultry precedence of the Birds which are carnivorous or scavengers. But greater value lies in his generic or sub- generic divisions, which taken as a whole, are far more natural than those of Linnaeus, and consequently capable of better diagnosis. More than this, he seems to be the earliest ornithologist, perhaps the earliest zoologist, to conceive the idea of each genus possessing what is now called a " type " — though such a term does not occur in his work ; and, in like manner, without declaring it in so many words, he indicated unmistakably the existence of subgenera — all this being effected by the skilful use of names. ^ Several Birds from Jamaica were figured in Sloane's Voyage, &c. (1705-1725), and a good many exotic species in the Thesaurus, &c. of Seba (1734-1765), but from their faulty execution these plates had little effect upon Ornithology. ^ The works of Catesby and Edwards were afterwards reproduced at Nuremberg and Amsterdam by Seligmann, with the letterpress in German, French and Dutch. ' Birds were treated of in a worthless fashion by one D. B. in a Dictionnaire raisonne et v.niversel des animaux, published at Paris in 1759. DICTIONARY OF BIRDS Unfortunately lie was too soon in the field to avail liimseK, even had he been so minded, of the convenient mode of nomenclature brought into use by Linnaeus, and it is only in the last two volumes of Brisson's Ornithologie that any reference is made to the tenth edition of the Systenia Natitrse, in which the binomial method was introduced. It is certain that the first four volumes were written if not printed before that method was promulgated, and when the fame of Linnseus as a zoologist rested on little more than the very meagre sixth edition of the Systema Natures and the first edition of his Fauna Suecica. Brisson has been charged with jealousy of, if not hostility to, the great Swede, and it is true that in the preface to his Ornithologie he complains of the insufficiency of the Linnsean characters, but, when one considers his much better acquaintance with Birds, such criticism must be allowed to be pardonable if not wholly just. This work was in French, with a parallel translation in Latin, which last (edited, it is said, by Pallas) was reprinted separately at Leyden three years afterwards. In 1767 there was issued at Paris a book entitled L'histoire naturelle eclair cie dans une de ses parties principales, V Ornithologie. This was the work of Salerne, published after his death, and is often spoken of as being a mere translation of Ray's Synopsis, but is thereby very inadequately described, for, though it is confessedly founded on that little book, a vast amount of fresh matter, and mostly of good quality, is added. The success of Edwards's work seems to have provoked competition, and in 1765, at the instigation of Buflbn, the younger D'Aubenton began the publication known as the Planches Enlumine'ez d'histoire naturelle, which appearing in forty-two parts was not completed till 1780, when the plates 1 it contained reached the number of 1008 — all coloured, as its title intimates, and nearly all representing Birds. This enormous work was subsidized by the French Government ; and, though the figures are devoid of artistic merit, they display the species they are intended to depict with sufficient approach to fidelity to ensure recognition in most cases without fear of error, which in the absence of any text is no small praise.^ But Buffon was not content with merely causing to be published this unparalleled set of plates. He seems to have regarded the work just named as a necessary precursor to his own labours in Ornithology. His Histoire Naturelle, generate et particulihre, was begun in 1749, and in 1770 he brought out, with the assistance of Gu^nau de Montbeillard,^ the first volume of that grand undertaking relating to Birds, which, for the first time, became the theme of one who possessed real literary capacity. It ^ They were drawn and engraved by Martinet, who himself began in 1787 a Histoire des Oiseaux with small coloured plates which have some merit, but the text is worthless. The work seems not to have been finished, and is rare. For the opportunity of seeing a copy I was indebted to my kind friend the late Jlr. Gurney. - Between 1767 and 1776 there appeared at Florence a Storia Naturale degli Uccelli, in five folio volumes, containing a number of ill-draMTi and ill-coloured figures from the collection of Giovanni Geriui, an ardent collector who, having died in 1751, must be acquitted of any share in the work, which, though sometimes attributed to him, is that of certain learned men who did not happen to be ornithologists (<;/". Savi, Ornitholofjia Toscana, i. Introduzione, p. v.). "* He retired on the com]ilction of the sixth volume, and thereupon Button associated Bexon with himself. INTRODUCTION is not too much to say tliat Buffon's florid fancy revelled in such a subject as was that on which he now exercised his brilliant pen ; but it would be unjust to examine too closely what to many of his contemporaries seemed sound philosophical reasoning under the light that has since burst upon us. Strictly orthodox though he professed to be, there were those, both among his own countrymen and foreigners, who could not read his speculative indictments of the workings of Nature without a shudder ; and it is easy for any one in these days to frame a reply, pointed with ridicule, to such a chapter as he wrote on the wretched fate of the Wood- pecker. In the nine volumes devoted to the Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux there are passages which will for ever live in the memory of those that carefully read them, however much occasional expressions, or even the general tone of the author, may grate upon their feelings. He too was the first man who formed any theory that may be called reasonable of the Geographical Distribution of Animals, though this theory was scarcely touched in the ornithological portion of his work, and has since proved to be not in accordance with facts. He proclaimed the variability of species in opposition to the views of Linnseus as to their fixity, and moreover supposed that this variability arose in part by degradation.^ Taking his labours as a whole, there cannot be a doubt that he enormously enlarged the purview of naturalists, and, even if limited to Birds, that, on the completion of his work upon them in 1783, Ornithology stood in a very different position from that which it had before occupied. Because he opposed the system of Linnaeus he has been said to be opposed to systems in general ; but that is scarcely correct, for he had a system of his own ; and, as we now see it, it appears neither much better nor much worse than the systems which had been hitherto invented, or perhaps than any which was propounded for many years to come. It is certain that he despised any kind of scientific phraseology — a crime in the eyes of those who consider precise nomenclature to be the end of science ; but those who deem it merely a means whereby knowledge can be securely stored will take a different view — and have done so. Great as were the services of Buffon to Ornithology in one direction, those of a wholly different kind rendered by our countryman John Latham must not be overlooked. In 1781 he began a work the practical utility of which was immediately recognized. This was his General Synopsis of Birds, and, though formed generally on the model of Linnseus greatly diverged in some respects therefrom. The classification was modified, chiefly on the older lines of Willughby and Ray, and certainly for the better ; but no scientific nomenclature was adopted, which, as the author subsequently found, was a change for the worse. His scope was co-extensive with that of Brisson, but Latham did not possess the inborn faculty of picking out the characters wherein one species differs from another. His opportunities of becoming acquainted with Birds were hardly inferior to Brisson's, for during Latham's long lifetime there poured in upon him countless new discoveries from all parts of the world, but especially from the newly -explored shores of Australia and the islands of the Pacific Ocean. ^ See Prof. Mivart's address to the Section of Biology, Mep. Brit. Association (Slieffield Meeting), 1879, p. 356. DICTION AR Y OF BIRDS The British Museum had been formed, and he had access to everything it contained in addition to the abundant materials afforded him by the private Museum of Sir Ashton Lever.^ Latham entered, so far as the limits of his work would allow, into the history of the Birds he described, and this with evident zest, whereby he differed from his French pre- decessor ; but the number of cases in which he erred as to the determina- tion of his species must be very great, and not imfrequently the same species is described more than once. His ^ynofsis was finished in 1785 ; two supplements were added in 1787 and 1802,^ and in 1790 he pro- duced a Latin abstract of the work under the title of Index O'rnithologicus, wherein he assigned names on the Linnaean method to all the species described. Not to recur again to his labours, it may be said here that between 1821 and 1828 he published at Winchester, in eleven volumes, an enlarged edition of his original work, entitling it A General History of Birds ; but his defects as a compiler, which had been manifest before, rather increased with age, and the consequences were not happy. ^ About the time that Buffon was bringing to an end his studies of Birds, Mauduyt undertook to write the Ornithologie of the Encydoiyedie Methodiqits — a comparatively easy task, considering the recent works of his fellow-countrymen on that subject, and finished in 1784. Here it requires no further comment, especially as a new edition was called for in 1790, the ornithological portion of which was begun by Bonnaterre, who, however, had only finished 320 pages of it when he lost his life in the French Revolution ; and the work thus arrested was continued by Vieillot under the slightly changed title of Tableau, encyclope'dique et methodique des trois regnes de la Nature — the Ornithologie forming volumes four to seven, and not completed till 1823. In the former edition Mauduyt had taken the subjects alphabetically ; but here they are disposed according to an arrangement, with some few modifications, furnished by D'Aubenton, which is extremely shallow and unworthy of consideration. Several other works bearing upon Ornithology in general, but of less importance than most of those just named, belong to this period. Among others may be mentioned the Genera of Birds by Thomas Pennant, first printed at Edinburgh in 1773 in octavo, and very rare, but well known by the quarto edition which appeared in London in 1781 ; the Elementa Ornithologica * and Museum Ornithologicum of Schaffer, published at Eatis- bon in 1774 and 1784 respectively ; Peter Brown's New Illustrations of Zoology in London in 1776 ; Hermann's Tabids Affinitatum Animalium at Strasburg in 1783, followed posthumously in 1804 by his Observationes ^ In 1792 Shaw began the Museum Leverianum, in illustration of this collection, which was finally dispersed by sale in 1806, and what is known to remain of it found its way either to the collection of the then Lord Stanley (afterwards 13th Earl of Derby), and was, at his death in 1851, bequeathed to the Liverpool Museum, or to Vienna [Ibis, 1873, pp. 14-54, 105-124; 1874, p. 461). Of the specimens in the British Museum described by Latham not one exists. They were probably very im- perfectly prepared. " A German translation by Bechstein subsequently appeared. 3 He also prepared for publication a second edition of his hidex OmithologicuSy which was never printed, and the manuscript is now in my possession. * The so-called second edition (1779) of this has only a new title-page. INTRODUCTION 13 Zoologies^ ; Jacquin's Beytracge zur Geschuhte der Voegel at Vienna in 1784, and in 1790 at the same place the larger work of Spalowsky with nearly the same title ; Sparrman's Museum Garlsonianum at Stockholm from 1786 to 1789; and in 1794 Hayes's Portraits of rare and curious Birds from the menagery of Child the banker at Osterley near London. The same draughtsman (who had in 1775 produced a bad History of British Birds) in 1822 began another series of Figures of rare and curious Birds} The practice of Brisson, Buffon, Latham and others of not giving names after the Linneean fashion .to the species they described gave great encouragement to compilation, and led to what has proved to be of some inconvenience to modern ornithologists. In 1773 Philip Ludvig Statins MllUer brought out at Nuremberg a German translation of the Systema Naturse, completing it in 1776 by a Supplement containing a list of animals thus described, which had hitherto been technically anonymous, with diagnoses and names on the Linnsean model. In 1783 Boddaert printed at Utrecht a Tahle des Planches Enlumineez,^ in which he attempted to refer every species of Bird figured in that extensive series to its proper Linneean genus, and to assign it a scientific name if it did not already j)ossess one. In like manner in 1786, Scopoli — already the author of a little book published at Leipzig in 1769 under the title of Annus I. Historico-naturalis, in which are described many Birds, mostly from his own collection or the Imperial vivarium at Vienna — was at the pains to print at Pavia in his miscellaneous Delicix Fiords et Faunee Insuhricse a Specimen Zoologicum^ containing diagnoses, duly named, of the Birds discovered and described by Sonnerat in his Voyage aux Indes orientates and Voyage a la Nouvelle Guinee, severally published at Paris in 1772 and 1776. But the most striking example of compilation was that exhibited by J. F, Gmelin, who in 1788 commenced what he called the Thirteenth Edition of the celebrated Systema Naturse, which obtained so wide a circulation that, in the comparative rarity of the original, the additions of this editor have been very frequently quoted, even by exj)ert naturalists, as though they were the work of the author himself. Gmelin availed himself of every publication he could, but he perhaps found his richest booty in the labours of Latham, neatly condensing his English descriptions into Latin diagnoses, and bestowing on them binomial names. Hence it is that Gmelin appears as the authority for so much of the nomenclature now in use. He took many liberties with the details of ^ TJie Naturalist's Miscellany or Vivarium Naturale, in English and Latin, of Shaw and Nodder, the former being the author, the latter the draughtsman and engraver, was begun in 1789 and carried on till ShaAv's death, forming twenty-four volumes. It contains figures of more than 280 Birds, but very poorly executed. In 1814 a sequel, The Zoological Miscellany, was begun by Leach, Nodder continuing to do the plates. This was completed in 1817, and forms three volumes with 149 j)lates, 27 of which represent Birds. ^ Of this work only fifty copies were printed, and it is one of the rarest known to the ornithologist. Only two copies are believed to exist in England, one in the British Museum, the other in private hands. It Avas reprinted in 1874 by Mr. Tegetmeier. ^ This was reprinted in 1882 by the Willughby Society. 14 DICTION AR Y OF BIRDS Linnfeus's work, but left the classification, at least of the Birds, as it was — a few new genera excepted.^ During all this time little had been done in studying the internal structure of Birds since the works of Goiter already mentioned ; ^ but the foundations of the science of Embryology had been laid by the investiga- tions into the development of the chick by the great Harvey. Between 1666 and 1669 Perrault edited at Paris eight accounts of the dissection by Du Verney of as many species of Birds, which, translated into English, were published by the Eoyal Society in 1702, under the title of The Natural History of Animals. After the death of the two anatomists just named, another series of similar descriptions of eight other species was found among their papers, and the whole were published in the Memoires of the French Academy of Sciences in 1733 and 1734. But in 1681 Gerard Blasius had brought out at Amsterdam an Anatorae Animalium, containing the results of all the dissections of animals that he could find ; and the second part of this book, treating of Volatilia, makes a respectable show of more than 120 closely-printed quarto pages, though nearly two- thirds is devoted to a treatise Be Ovo et PvMo, containing among other things a reprint of Harvey's researches, and the scientific rank of the whole book may be inferred from Bats being still classed with Birds. In 1720 Valentini published, at Frankfort-on-the-Main, his Arnphitheatrura Zootomicura, in which again most of the existing accounts of the anatomy of Birds were reprinted. But these and many other contributions,^ made until nearly the close of the eighteenth century, though highly meritorious, were unconnected as a whole, and it is plain that no conception of what it was in the power of Gomparative Anatomy to set forth had occurred to the most diligent dissectors. This privilege was reserved for Georges Guvier, who in 1798 published at Paris his Tableau ^lementaire de Vhistoire naturelle des Anvmaux, and thus laid the foundation of a thorough and hitherto unknown mode of appreciating the value of the various groiips of the Animal Kingdom. Yet his first attempt was a mere sketch.* Though he made a perceptible advance on the classification of Linnseus, at that time predominant, it is now easy to see in how many ways — want of sufficient material being no doubt one of the chief — Gu\"ier failed to produce a really natural arrangement. His principles, however, are those which must still guide taxonomers, notwithstanding that they have in so great a degree overthrown the entire scheme which he jDropounded. Cuvier's arrangement of the Glass Aves is now seen to be not very much 1 Daiidin's unfinished Traife elementaire et complet d'Ornithologie appeared at Paris in 1800, and therefore is the last of these general works published in the eighteenth centiiry. - A succinct notice of the older works on Ornithotomy is given by Prof. Selenka in the introduction to that portion of Bronn's Kla^sen unci Ordnungen des Thierreichs relating to Birds (pp. 1-9) published in 1869 ; and Prof. Carus's Geschichte der Zoologie, published in 1872, may also be usefully consulted for further information on this and other heads. " The treatises of the two Bartholinis and Borrichius published at Copenhagen deserve mention if only to record the activity of Danish anatomists in those days. ■• It had no effect on Lacepwle, who in the following year added a Tableau Melliodique containing a classification of Birds to his Discours d'Ouverture (Mem. de I'lnsiiiut, iii. pp. 454-468, 503-519). IXTRODUCTIOy ij better than any wliicli it superseded, thongli this view is gained by follow- ing the methods which Cuvier taught. In the Tvork just mentioned few details are given; but even the more elaborate classitication of Birds contained in his Lecons cPAnatoinie Camparee of 1805 is based wholly on external characters, such as had been used by nearly all his predecessors ; and the Hegnc Animal of 1817, when he M'as in his fullest vigour, aiforded not the least evidence that he had ever dissected a couple even of Birds ^ with the object of determining their relative position in his system, which then, as before, depended wholly on the configuration of bills, wings and feet. But, though apparently without such a knowledge of the anatomy of Birds as would enable him to ajiply it to the formation of that natural system which he was fully aware had yet to be sought, he seems to have been an excellent judge of the characters afforded by the bill and limbs, and the use he made of them, coupled with the extraordinary reputation he acquired on other grounds, procured for his system the adhesion for many years of the majority of ornithologists. Eegret mxist always be felt by them that his great genius was never applied in earnest to their branch of study, especially when we consider that had it been so the perversion of energy in regard to the classification of Birds witnessed in England for nearly twenty years, and presently to be mentioned, would most likely have been prevented.- Hithorto mention has chiefly been made of works on General Orui- thology, but it will be understood that these were largely aided by the enterprise of travellers, and as there were many of them who published their narratives in separate forms, their contributions have to be considered. Of those travellers, then, the first to be here especially named is.Marsigli, the fifth volume of whose Danuhim Pannomco-Mysicus is devoted to the Birds he met with in the valley of the Danttbe, and appeared at the Hague in 1725, followed by a French translation in 1744.8 Most of the many pupils whom Linnc^us sent to foreign countries submitted their discoA'eries to him, but the respective travels of Kalm, Hasselqvist and Osbeck in North America, the Levant and China were pitblished separ- ately.-* The incessant journeys of PaDas and his colleagues — Falk. Georgi, J. G. and S. G. Gmelin, Giildenstadt, Lepechin and others — in ■^ So little regard did he pay to the Osteology of Birds that, according to De Blainville (Jour, dc P/u/s. xcii. p. IS", note), the skeleton of a Fowl to which was attached the head of a Hornbill was for a long time exhibited in the Mnseum of Comparative Anatomy at Paris ! Yet, in order to determine the diflerence of struc- ture in their organs of voice, Cuvier, as he says in his Lecons (iv. p. 464), dissected more than 150 species of Birds, Unfortunately for him, as will appear in the sequel, it seems not to have occiu-red to him to use any of the restilts he obtained as the basis of a classitication. - It is imnecessary to enumerate the various editions of the Bcffiie Ani'jnaL Of the English translations, that edited by Griffiths and Pidgeon is the most complete. The ornithological portion of it, contained in three volumes, received many additions from John Edward Gray, and appeared in 1S29, but even at that time must have been lamentably deficient. ^ Though much later in date, the Iter jper Poseganam Sdavonix of Filler and Mitterpacher, published at Buda in 1783, may perhaps be here most conveniently nientioued. ■* The results of Forskal's travels in the Levant, published after his death by Niebuhr, require mention, though the ornithology they contain is but scant. i6 DICTION AR Y OF BIRDS tlie exploration of tlie recently extended Eussian empire supplied not only much material to the Commentarii and Acta of the Academy of St. Petersburg, but more that is to be found in their narratives — all of it being of the highest interest to students of Holarctic Ornithology. Nearly the whole of their results, it may here be said, were summed up in the important Zoographia Eosso-Asiatica of the first-named naturalist, two volumes of which saw the light in 1811, — the year of its author's death, — but, owing to circumstances over which he had no control, were not generally accessible till twenty years later. Of still wider interest are the accounts of Cook's three famous voyages, though unhappily much of the information gained by the naturalists who accompanied him on one or more of them seems to be irretrievably lost : the original observations of the elder Forster were not printed till 1844, and the valuable series of zoological drawings made by the younger Forster and William Ellis still remain unpublished in the British Museum. The several accounts by John White, Collins, Phillip, Hunter and others, of the colonization of New South Wales at the end of the last century, ought not to be overlooked by any Australian orni- thologist. The only information belonging to this period on the Orni- thology of -South America is contained in the two works on Chili by Molina, published at Bologna in 1776 and 1782. The travels of Le Vaillant in South Africa having ended in 1785, his great Oiseaux d'Afrique began to appear in Paris in 1797 ;i but it is hard to speak patiently of this work, for several of the species described in it are certainly not, and never were inhabitants of that country — admittedly so in some cases, though in others he gives a long account of the circum- stances in which he observed them.^ From travellers who employ themselves in collecting the animals of any distant country the zoologists who stay at home and study those of their own district, be it great or small, are really not so much divided as at first might appear. Both may well be named " Faunists," and of the latter there were not a few who having turned their attention more or less to Ornithology should here be mentioned, and first among them Rzaczynski, who in 1721 brought out at Sandomirsk the Historia naturalis curiosa regni Poloniee, to which an Auctuarium was posthumously published at Danzig in 1742. This also may be perhaps the most proper place to notice the Historia Avium Hungarise, of Grossinger, published at Posen in 1793. In 1734 J. L. Frisch began the long series of works on the Birds of Germany with which the literature of Ornithology is enriched, b}^ his Vorstellung der Vcigel TeutscJilands, which was only completed in 1763, and, its coloured plates proving very attractive, was again issued at Berlin in 1817. The little fly-sheet of Zorn^ — for it is scarcely more — on the ^ In 1798 lie issued a duodecimo edition of this work, which seems to be little known. Two volumes, extending to No. 117 of the folio edition, are in my posses- sion, but I cannot say whether more appeared. His large work failed to obtain support, and finished with its si.xth volume in 1808. - It has been charitably suggested that, his collection and notes having suffered shipwreck, he was induced to supply the latter from his memory and the former by the nearest approach to his lost specimens that he could obtaiu. This explanation, poor as it is, fails, however, in regard to some species. ^ His earlier work under the title of Petinotheologic can hardly be deemed scieutitic. INTRODUCTION ij Birds of the Hercynian Forest made its appearance at Pappenheim in 1745. In 1756 Kramer published at Vienna a modest Ele7ichus of the plants and animals of Lower Austria, and J. D. Petersen produced at Altona in 1766 a Verzeichniss halthisclur Vogel ; while in 1791 J. B. Fischer's Versucli einer Naturgeschichte von Livland appeared at Konigs- berg. Next year Beseke brought out at Mitau his Beytrag zur Naturge- schichte der Vogel Kiorlmids, and in 1794 Siemssen's Handbuch of the Birds of Mecklenburg was published at Kostock. But these works, locally useful as they may have been, did not occupy the whole attention of German ornithologists, for in 1791, Bechstein reached the second volume of his Gemeinniitzige Naturgeschichte Deutschlands, treating of the Birds of that country, which ended with the fourth in 1795. Of this an abridged edition by the name of Ornithologisches Taschenbuch appeared in 1802 and 1803, with a supplement in 1812 ; while between 1805 and 1809 a fuller edition of the original was issued. Moreover in 1795 J. A. Naumann humbly began at Cothen a treatise on the Birds of the principality of Anhalt, which on its completion in 1804 was found to have swollen into an ornithology of Northern Germany and the neigh- .bouring countries. Eight supplements were successively published be- tween 1805 and 1817, and in 1822 a new edition was required. This Naturgeschichte der Vogel Deutschlands, being almost wholly re- written by his son J. F. Naumann, is by far the best thing of the kind as yet pro- duced in any country. The fulness and accuracy of the text combined with the neat beauty of its coloured plates, have gone far to promote the study of Ornithology in Germany, and while essentially a popular work, since it is suited to the comprehension of all readers, it is throughout written with a simple dignity that commends it to the serious and scientific. Its twelfth and last volume was published in 1844 — by no means too long a period for so arduous and honest a performance, — and a supplement was begun in 1847 ; but, the author dying in 1857, this continuation was finished in 1860 by the joint eff'orts of J. H. Blasius and Baldamus. In 1800 Borkhausen with others commenced at Darmstadt a Teutsche Ornithologie in folio which appeared at intervals till 1812, and remains unfinished, though a reissue of the portion published took place between 1837 and 1841. Other countries on the Continent, though not quite so prolific as Germany, bore some ornithological fruit at this period ; but in all Southern Europe only four faunal products can be named : — the Saggio di Storia Naturale Bresciana of Pilati, published at Brescia in 1769 : the Ornitologia dell' Europa Meridionale of Bernini, published at Parma between 1772 and 1776 ; the Uccelli di Sardegna of Cetti, published at Sassari in 1776; and the Romana Ornithologia ot Gilius, published at Rome in 1781 — the last being in great part devoted to Pigeons and Poultry. More appeared in the North, for in 1770 Amsterdam sent forth the beginning of Nozeman's Nederlandsche Vogelen, a fairly -illustrated work in folio, but only completed by Houttuyn in 1829, and in Scan- dinavia most of all was done. In 1746 the great Linnaeus had produced a Fauna Svecica, of which a second edition appeared in 1761, and a third revised by Retzius in 1800. In 1764 Briinnich published at Copenhagen i8 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS Ms Ornithologia Borealis, a compendious sketch of the Birds of all the countries then subject to the Danish crown. At the same place appeared in 1767 Leem's work De Lapponibus Finmarchiee, to which Gunnerus contributed some good notes on the Ornithology of Northern Norway, and at Copenhagen and Leipzig was published in 1780 the Fauna Groenlandica of Otho Fabricius. Of strictly American origin can here be cited only Bartram's Travels through North and South Carolina and Barton's Fragments of the Natural History of Pennsylvania,^ both printed at Philadelphia, one in 1791, the other in 1799 ; but J. K. Forster published a Catalogue of the Animals of North America in London in 1771, and the following year described in the Philosophical Transactions a few Birds from Hudson's Bay.^ A greater undertaking was Pennant's Arctic Zoology, published in 1785, with a supplement in 1787. The scope of this work was originally intended to be limited to North America, but circumstances induced him to include all the species of Northern Europe and Northern Asia, and though not free from errors, it is a praiseworthy performance, A second edition appeared in 1792. The Ornithology of Britain naturally demands greater attention. The earliest list of British Birds we possess is, as . already stated, that in Merrett's Pinax Berum Naturalium Britannicarum, printed in London in 1666.^ In 1677 Plot published his Natural History of Oxfordshire, which reached a second edition in 1705, and in 1686 that of Staffordshire. A similar work on Lancashire, Cheshire and the Peak was sent out in 1700 by Leigh, and one on Cornwall by Borlase in 1758 — all these four being printed at Oxford. In 1766 appeared Pennant's British Zoology, a well-illustrated folio, of which a second edition in octavo was published in 1768, and considerable additions (forming the nominally third edition) in 1770, while in 1777 there were two issues, one in octavo the other in quarto, each called the fourth edition. In 1812, long after the author's death, another edition was printed, of which his son-in-law Hanmer was the reputed editor, but he received much assistance from Latham, and through carelessness many of the additions herein made have often been ascribed to Pennant himself. In 1769 Berkenhout gave to the world his Outlines of the Natural History of Great Britain and Ireland, which reappeared under the title of Synopsis of the same in 1795, Tunstall's Ornithologia Britannica, which was issued in 1771, is little more than a list of names.* Hayes's Natural History of British Birds, a folio of forty plates and corresponding text, shewing much ignorance of them on the part of the author, appeared between 1771 and 1775. In 1781 Nash's 1 This rare book lias been reprinted by the Willugbby Society. ^ Both of these treatises have also been reprinted by the Williighby Society. ^ In 1667 there were two issues of a reprint of this book ; one, nominally a second edition, only differs from the other in having a new title-page. In anticijiation of a revised edition Sir Thomas Browne prepared in or about 1671 (?) his "Account of Birds found in Norfollc," of which the draught, now in the British Museum, was printed in his collected works by Wilkin in 1835. If a fair copy was ever nuulo its resting-place is unknown. * It has been republished by the Willughby Society. Of similar character is FothergiU's Ornithologia Jiritannica, a mere list of names, Latin and English, juiuti'd in small folio at York in 1799. INTRODUCTION ig Worcestershire included a few ornitliological notices ; andWalcott in 1789 published an illustrated Synopsis of British Birds, coloured copies of which are rare. Simultaneously William Lewin commenced his Birds of Great Britain, in 7 quarto volumes, the last of which appeared in 1794, a re-issue of the whole in 8 volumes following between 1795 and 1801. In 1791 J. Heysham added to Hutchins's Oumherland a list of birds of that county, while in the same year began Thomas Lord's Entire New System of Ornithology, or (Ecumenical History of British Birds, the un- grammatical text professedly written, or corrected, by Dr. Dupree, a pretentious and worthless work of which 38 parts were published in the course of the next five years. In 1794 Donovan commenced a History of British Birds which was only finished in 1819 — the earlier portion being reissued about the same time. Bolton's Harmonia Buralis, an account of British Song-Birds, first appeared between 1794 and 1796. Other editions followed, one even 50 years later. ^ All the foregoing British publications yield in importance to two that remain to be mentioned. In 1767 Pennant, several of whose works have already been named, entered into correspondence with Gilbert White, receiving from him much information, almost wholly drawn from his own observation, for the succeeding editions of the British Zoology. In 1769 White began exchanging letters of a similar character with Barrington. The epistolary intercourse with the former continued imtil 1780, and with the latter until 1787. In 1789 White's share of the correspondence, together with some miscellaneous matter, was published as The Natural History of Selborne — from the name of the village in which he lived. Observations on Birds form the principal though by no means the whole theme of this book, which may be safely said to have done more to pro- mote a love of Ornithology in this country than any other work that has been written, nay more than all the other works (except one next to be mentioned) put together. It has passed through a far greater number of editions than any other work on Natural History in the whole world, and has become emphatically an English classic — the graceful simplicity of its style, the elevating tone of its spirit and the sympathetic chords it strikes recommending it to every lover of nature, while the severely scientific reader can find few errors in the statements it contains, whether of matter-of-fact or opinion. It is almost certain that more than half the zoologists of the British Islands for the past eighty yeg,rs or more have been infected with their love of the study by Gilbert White ; and it can hardly be supposed that his influence will cease. ^ ■'■ I cannot vouch for the complete accuracy of some of the dates given above. They have puzzled even that accomplished bibliographer Dr. Coues. It was nobody's business in those days to record the precise time of appearance of a work published In parts, and the date, when given at the foot of the plates, cannot always be trusted. ^ Next to the original edition, that known as Bennett's, published in 1837, which was reissued in 1875 by Mr. Harting, was long deemed the best ; but it must give place to that of Bell, which appeared in 1877, and contains much additional informa- tion of great interest. But the editions of Markwick, Herbert, Blyth and Jardine all possess features of merit. An elaborately prepared edition, issued in 1875 by one who gained great reputation as a naturalist, only shews his ignorance and his vulgarity. Since that time several popular writers have essayed other editions, though their labour may have been limited to the production of a preface in which DICTIONARY OF BIRDS The other work to the importance of which on Ornithology in this country allusion has been made is Bewick's History of British Birds. The first volume of this, containing the Land-Birds, appeared in 1797^ — the text being, it is understood, by Beilby — the second, containing the Water-Birds, in 1804. The woodcuts illustrating this work are generally of surpassing excellence, and it takes rank in the category of artistic publications. Fully admitting the extraordinary execution of the engrav- ings, every ornithologist may perceive that as portraits of the Birds represented they are of very unequal merit. Some of the figures were drawn from stufi'ed specimens, and accordingly perpetuate all the imper- fections of the original ; others delineate species with the appearance of which the artist was not familiar, and these are either wanting in expres- sion or are caricatures ;^ but those that were drawn from live Birds, or represent species which he knew in life, are worthy of all praise. It is well known that the earlier editions of this work, especially if they be upon large paper, command extravagant prices ; but in reality the copies on smaller paper are now the rarer, for the stock of them has been con- sumed in nurseries and schoolrooms, where they have been torn up or worn out with incessant use. Moreover, whatever the lovers of the fine arts may say, it is nearly certain that the " Bewick Collector " is mistaken in attaching so high a value to these old editions, for owing to the want of skill in printing — indifferent ink being especially assigned as one cause — many of the earlier issues fail to shew the most delicate touches of the engraver, which the increased care bestowed upon the edition of 1847 (published under the supervision of the late John Hancock) has revealed, — though it must be admitted that certain blocks have suflered from wear of the press so as to be incapable of any more producing the effect intended. Of the text it may be said that it is respectable, but no more. It has given satisfaction to thousands of readers in time past, and will, it may be hoped, give satisfaction to thousands in time to come. The existence of these two works explains the widely-spread taste for Ornithology in this country, which is to foreigners so puzzling, and the they generally contrive to disi)lay their incompetence. A more remarkable feature is the publication of a fairly printed edition at the price of sixpence ! A curiously compressed German translation by F. A. A. Meyer appeared at Berlin in 1792, under the title of Beytrdge zur Naturgeschichte von England ; and more than one reprint, apparently of Lady Dover's "Bowdlerized" edition of 1833, has been issued in America (c/. Coues, Froc. U. S. Nat. Mus. ii. p. 429). For information as to different editions published prior to and including that of Bell, see Notes and Queries, ser. 5, vii. pp. 241, 264, 296, 338, 471, viii. p. 304, and i.\'. p. 150. The imitators of Gilbert White are countless. More than one has admittedly produced a very pretty book ; but on essaying a second the falling off is manifest. Others at once shew their shallowness, and good as may be their intention, their observations, however pleasant to read, are utterly valueless. Such writers can seldom rid themselves of the consciousness of their own personality, the absence of which is so charming in the author they more or less unconsciously mimic. ^ There were two issues — virtually two editions — of this with the same date on the title-page, though one of them is said not to have been published till the following year. Among several other indicia tliis may be recognized by the woodcut of the "Sea Eagle" at page 11 bearing at its base the inscription "Wycliffe, 1791," and by the additional misprint on page 145 of Salixniclus for Schwttidu^. 2 This is especially observable in the ligures of the Birds-of-Prey. INTRODUCTION zeal — not always according to knowledge, but occasionally reaching to serious study — with which that taste is pursued. Having thus noticed, and it is to be hoped pretty thoroughlj^, the chief ornithological works begun if not completed prior to the commence- ment of the present centiiry, together with their immediate sequels, those which follow will require a very different mode of treatment, for their niimber is so great that it would be impossible for want of space to deal with them in the same extended fashion, though the attempt will finally lie made to enter into details in the case of works constituting the founda- tion upon which apparently the superstructure of the future science has to be built. It ought not to need stating that much of what was, com- paratively speaking, only a few years ago regarded as scientific labour is now no longer to be so considered. The mere fact that the principle of Evolution, and all its admission carries with it, has been accepted in some form or other by almost all naturalists, has rendered obsolete nearly every theory that had hitherto been broached, and in scarcely any branch of zoological research was theory more rife than in Ornithology. One of these theories must presently be noticed at some length on account of the historical importance which attaches to its malefic effects in impeding the progress of true Ornithology in Britain ; but charity enjoins us to consign all the rest as much as possible to oblivion. On reviewing the progress of Ornithology since the end of the last century, the first thing that will strike us is the fact that general works, though still undertaken, have become proportionally fewer, and such as exist are apt to consist of mere explanations of systematic methods that had already been more or less fully propounded, while special works, whether relating to the ornithic portion of the Fauna of any particular country, or limited to certain groups of Birds — works to which of late years the name of " Monograph " has become wholly restricted — have become far more numerous. But this seems to be the natural law in all sciences, and its cause is not far to seek. As the knowledge of any branch of study extends, it outgrows the opportunities and capabilities of most men to follow it as a whole ; and, since the true naturalist, by reason of the irresistible impulse which drives him to work, cannot be idle, he is compelled to confine his energies to narrower fields of investiga- tion. That in a general way this is for some reason to be regretted is true ; but, like all natural operations, it carries with it some recompense, and the excellent work done by so-called " specialists " has over and over again proved of the greatest use to advancement in different departments of science, and in none more than in Ornithology.^ Another change has come over the condition of Ornithology, as of kindred sciences, induced by the multiplication of learned societies which issue publications, as well as of periodicals of greater or less scientific pretension — the latter generally enjoying a circulation far wider than the ^ The trutli of the preceding remarks may be so obvious to most men who have acquaintance with the subject that their introduction here may seem unnecessary ; but it is certain that the facts they state have been very little appreciated by many ■writers who profess to give an account of the progress of Natural History during the present century. DICTION AR V OF BIRDS former. Both kinds increase yearly, and the desponding mind may fear the possibility of its favourite study expiring through being smothered by its own literature. Without anticipating such a future disaster, and look- ing merely to what has gone before, it is necessary here to premise that, in the observations which immediately follow, treatises which have appeared in the publications of learned bodies or in other scientific periodicals must, except they be of prime importance, be hereinafter passed unnoticed ; but their omission will be the less felt because the more recent of those of a " faunal " character are generally mentioned in the text (Geogeaphical Distribution) under the different countries with which they deal, while reference to the older of these treatises is usually given by the writers of the newer. Still it seems advisable here to furnish some connected accoiint of the progress made in the ornitho- logical knowledge of those countries in which the readers of the present volume may be supposed to take the most lively interest — namely, the British Islands and those parts of the Euroj)ean continent which lie nearest to them or are most commonly sought by travellers, the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America, the British West Indies, South Africa, India, together with Australia and New Zealand. The more important Monographs, again, will usually be found cited in the series of special articles contained in this work, though, as will be immediately perceived, there are some so-styled Monographs, which by reason of the changed views of classification that at present obtain, have lost their restricted character, and for all practical purposes have now to be regarded as general works. It will perhaps be most convenient to begin by mentioning some of these last, and in particular a number of them which appeared at Paris early in this century. First in order of them is the Histoire Naturelle (Vune ]partie d'Oiseaux nouveaux et rares cle VAmerique et des Indes, a folio volume 1 published in 1801 by Le Vaillant. This is devoted to the very distinct and not nearly-allied groups of Hornbills and of Birds which for want of a better name w^e call "Chatterers," and is illus- trated, like those works of ■which a notice immediately follows, by coloured plates, done in what was then considered to be the highest style of art and by the best draughtsmen procurable. The first volume of a Histoire Naturelle des Perroquets, a companion work by the same author, appeared in the same year, and is truly a Monograph, since the Parrots constitute a Family of Birds so naturally severed from all others, that there has rarely been anything else confounded with them. The second volume came out in 1805, and a third -was issued in 1837-38 long after the death of its predecessor's author, by Bourjot St.-Hilaire. Between 1803 and 1806 Le Vaillant also published in just the same style two volvimes with the title of Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux de Paradis et des Rolliers, suivie de cclle des Toiicans et des Barbus, an assemblage of forms, which, miscellaneous as it is, was surpassed in incongruity by a fourth work on the same scale, the Histoire Naturelle des Promerops et des GuSpiers, des Couroucous et des Touracos, for herein are found Jays, Wax- ^ There is also an issue of this, as of the same author's other works, on large quarto paper. INTRODUCTION 23 wings, tlie Cock-of-tlie-Rock (Eupicola) and what not besides. The plates in this last are by Barraband, for many years regarded as the perfection of ornithological artists, and indeed the figures, when they happen to have been drawn from the life, are not bad ; but his skill was quite unable to vivify the preserved specimens contained in Museums, and when he had only these as subjects he simply copied the distortions of the " bird-stuffer." The following year, 1808, being aided by Tem- minck of Amsterdam, of whose son we shall presently hear more, Le Vaillant brought out the sixth volume of his Oiseaux d'Afrique, already mentioned. Four more volumes of this work were promised ; but the means of executing them were denied to him, and, though he lived until 1824, his publications ceased. A similar series of works was projected and begun about the same time as that of Le Vaillant by Audebert and Vieillot, though the former, who was by profession a painter and illustrated the work, had died more than a year before the appearance of the two volumes, bearing date 1802, and entitled Oiseaux dore's ou a reflets m^talliques, the effect of the plates in which he sought to heighten by the use of gilding. The first volume contains the " Colibris, Oiseaux -mouches, Jacamars et Pro- merops," the second the " Grimpereaux-" and " Oiseaux de Paradis " — - associations which set all the laws of systematic method at defiance. His colleague, Vieillot, brought out in 1805 a Histoire Naturelle des i^^us beaux Ghantei(,rs de la Zone Torride with figures by Langlois of tropical Finches, Grosbeaks, Buntings and other hard-billed Birds; and in 1807 two volumes of a Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux de VAm&ique Septen- trionale, without, however, paying much attention to the limits commonly assigned by geographers to that part of the world. In 1805 Anselme Desmarest published a Histoire Naturelle des Tangaras, des Manahins et des Todiers, which, though belonging to the same category as all the former, difters from them in its more scientific treatment of the subjects to which it refers ; and, in 1808, Temminck, whose father's aid to Le Vaillant has already been noticed, brought out at Paris a Histoire Naturelle des Pigeons, illustrated by Madame Knip, who had drawn the plates for Desmarest's volume.^ Since we have begun by considering these large illustrated works in which the text is made subservient to the coloured plates, it may be convenient to continue our notice of such others of similar character as it may be expedient to mention here, though thereby we shall be led somewhat far afield. Most of them are but luxuries, and there is some degree of truth in the remark of Andreas Wagner in his Eeport on the Progress of Zoology for 1843, drawn up for the Ray Society (p. 60), that they " are not adapted for the extension and promotion of science, but must inevitably, on account of their unnecessary costliness, constantly tend to reduce the number of naturalists who are able to avail them- selves of them, and they thus enrich ornithology only to its ultimate ■"■ Temminck subsequently reproduced, with many additions, the text of this volume in his Histoire Naturelle des Pigeons et des Gallinacees, pi^blished at Am- sterdam in 1813-15, in 3 vols. 8vo. Between 1838 and 1848 Floreut-Provost brought out at Paris a further set of illustrations of Pigeons by Mdme. Knip. 24 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS injury." Earliest in date, as it is greatest in bulk, stands Audubon's egregious Birds of America, in four volumes, containing 435 plates, of wbicli tbe first part appeared in London in 1827 and the last in 1838.^ It seems not to have been the author's original intention to publish any letterpress to this enormous work, but to let the plates tell their own story, though finally, with the assistance, as is now known, of William Macgillivray, a text, on the whole more than respectable, was produced in five large octavos under the title of Ornithological Biography, of which more will be said in the sequel. Audubon has been greatly extolled as an ornithological artist ; but he was far too much addicted to representing his subjects in violent action and in postures that outrage nature, while his drawing is very frequently defective.^ In 1866 Mr. D. G. Elliot began, and in 1869 finished, a sequel to Audubon's great work in two volumes, on the same scale — The New and hitherto Unfigured Species of the Birds of North America, containing life-size figures of all those which had been added to its fauna since the completion of the former. In 1830 John Edward Gray commenced the Illustrations of Indian Zoology, a series of plates, mostly of Birds, from drawings by native artists in the collection of General Hardvvicke, whose name is therefore associated with the work. Scientific names are assigned to the species figured ; but no text was ever supplied. In 1832 Lear, well known as a painter, brought out his Illustrations of the Family of Psittacidse, a volume which deserves especial notice from the fidelity to nature and the artistic skill with which the figures were executed. This same year (1832) saw the beginning of the marvellous series of works by which the name of John Gould is likely to be always re- membered. A Century of Birds from the Himalaya Moxmtains was followed by The Birds of Europe, in five volumes, published between 1832 and 1837, while in 1834 afppeared A Monograph of the Ramphas- tidse, of which a second edition was some years later called for ; and then the Icones Avium, of which only two parts were published (1837-38), while A Monograph of the Trogonidse. (1838), also reached a second edition (1858-75). In 1837-38 he also brought out the first two parts of his Birds of Australia, but speedily perceiving that he could not do justice to the ornithology of the vast island-continent without visiting it, he suspended the publication, and in 1838 sailed for New South AVales. Returning thence in 1840, he at once cancelled the portion he had issued and commenced anew this, the greatest of all his works, which was ■'■ In contrast to this, the largest of ornithological works, I may mention a Histoire Naturelle en Miniature de de [sic] 48 Oiscaux (96 pp. Paris : 1816). The only copy I have seen appears to be in the original calf binding, and measures 2"6 by 2 '15 inches. I am indebted for the loan of it to Mr. Kobert Service. ■•^ On the completion of these two works, for they must be regarded as distinct, an octavo edition in seven volumes under the title of The Birds of America was published in 1840-44. In this the large plates were reduced by means of the '^camera lueida," the text was revised, and the whole systematically arranged. Other reprints have since been issued, but they are vastly inferior both in execution and value. A sequel to the octavo Birds of America, corresponding with it in form, was brought out in 1853-55 by Cassin as Illustrations of the Birds of California, Texas, Oregon, British and Itussian America. INTRODUCTION 25 liuished iu 1848 iu seven volumes, to which five supplementary jjarts, forming another volume, were subsequently (1851-69) added. In 1849 he began A Monograph of the Trochilidse or Humming-hirds, extending to five volumes, the last of which appeared in 1861, and has since been followed by a supplement by Dr. Sharpe, who since the author's death in 1881 has completed The Birds of Asia, in seven volumes (1850-83), and The Birds of New Guinea, begun in 1875. A Monograph of the Odonto- fhorinse, or Partridges of America (1844-50), and The Birds of Great Britain, in five volumes (1862-73) make xip the wonderful tale consisting of more than forty folio volumes, and containing more than 3000 coloured plates.^ The earlier of these works were illustrated by Mrs. Gould, and the figures in them are fairly good ; but those in the later, except when (as he occasionally did) he secured the services of Mr. Wolf, are not so much to be commended. There is, it is true, a smoothness and finish about them not often seen elsewhere ; but, as though to avoid the exaggerations of Audubon, Gould usually adopted the tamest of attitudes in which to represent his subjects, whereby expression as well as vivacity is wanting. Moreover, both in drawing and in colouring there is fre- quently much that is untrue to nature, so that it has not uncommonly happened for them to fail in the chief object of all zoological plates, that of affording sure means of recognizing specimens on comparison. In estimating the letterpress, which was avowedly held to be of secondary importance to the plates, we must bear in mind that, to ensure the success of his works, it had to be written to suit a very peculiarly com- posed body of subscribers. Nevertheless a scientific character was so adroitly assumed that scientific men — some of them even ornithologists — have thence been led to believe the text had a scientific value, and that of a high class. However it must also be remembered that, throughout the whole of his career, Gould consulted the convenience of working orni- thologists by almost invariably refraining from including in his folio works the technical description of any new species without first pub- lishing it in some journal of comparatively easy access. An ambitious attempt to produce in England a general series of coloured plates on a large scale was Eraser's Zoologia Typica, the first part of which bears date 1841-42. Others appeared at irregular inter- vals until 1849, when the work, which never received the support it deserved, was discontinued. The 70 plates (46 of which represent Birds) composing, with some explanatory letterpress, the volume are by C. Cousens and H. N. Turner, — the latter (as his publications prove) a zoologist of much promise, who in 1851 died of a wound received in dissecting. The chief object of the author, who had been naturalist to the Niger Expedition, and curator to the Museum of the Zoological Society of London, was to figure the animals contained in its gardens or described iu its Proceedings, which until the year 1848 were not illustrated. The publication of the Zoological Sketches of Mr. Wolf, from animals •^ In 1850 Mr. F, H. Waterhouse brought out a careful pamphlet shewing The Dates of Publicatio7i of some of Gould's works, and ia 1893 Dr. Sharpe an Analytical Index to them. It is books of this kind that place the literature of ornithology so far in advance of that relating to any other branch of zoology. 26 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS in the gardens of the Zoological Society, was begun about 1855, with a brief text by Mitchell, at that time the Society's secretary, in illustra- tion of them. After his death in 1859, the explanatory letterpress was rewritten by Mr. Sclater, his successor in that ofl&ce, and a volume was completed in 1861. Upon this a second series was commenced, and brought to an end in 1868. Though a comparatively small number of species of Birds are figured in this magnificent work (17 only in the first series, and 22 in the second), it must be mentioned here, for their likenesses are so admirably executed as to place it in regard to orni- thological portraiture at the head of all others. There is not a plate that is unworthy of the greatest of all animal painters. Proceeding to illustrated works generally of less pretentious size but of greater ornithological utility than the books last mentioned, which are fitter for the drawing-room than the study, we next have to consider some in which the text is not wholly subordinated to the plates, though the latter still form a conspicuous feature of the pub- lication. First of these in point of time as well as in importance is the Nouveau Recueil cles Planches Colorie'es d'Oiseaux of Ternminck and Laugier, intended as a sequel to the Planches Enluviinees of D'Aubenton before noticed, and like that work issued both in folio and quarto size. The first portion of this was published at Paris in 1820, and of its 102 livraisons, which appeared with great irregularity (Ibis, 1868, p. 500), the last was issued in 1839, containing the titles of the five volumes that the whole forms, together with a "Tableau Methodique," which but indifferently serves the purpose of an index. There are 600 plates, but the exact number of species figured (which has been computed at 661) is not so easily ascertained. Generally the subject of each plate has letterpress to correspond, but in some cases this is wanting, while on the other hand descriptions of species not figured are occasionally intro- duced, and usually observations on the distribution and construction of each genus or group are added. The plates, which shew no improve- ment on those of Martinet, are after drawings by Huet and Pretre, the former being perhaps the less bad draughtsman of the two, for he seems to have had an idea of what a bird when alive looks like, though he was not able to give his figures any vitality, while the latter simply delineated the stiff and dishevelled specimens from museum shelves. Still the colouring is pretty well done, and experience has proved that generally speaking there is not much difficulty in recognizing the species represented. The letterpress is commonly limited to technical details, and is not always accurate ; but it is of its kind useful, for in general knowledge of the outside of Birds Temminck probably surpassed any of his contemporaries. The " Tableau Methodique " offers a convenient concordance of the old Planches Enlumine'es and its successor, and is arranged after the system set forth by Temminck in the first volume of the second edition of his Maiiuel d' Ornithologie, of which more presently. The Galerie des Oiseaux, a rival work, with plates by Oudart, seems to have been begun immediately after the former. The original project was apparently to give a figure and description of every species of Bird ; but that was soon found to be impossible; and, when six parts had been issued. INTRODUCTION 27 with text by some imnatned author, the scheme was brought within prac- ticable limits, and the writing of the letterpress was entrusted to Vieillot, Avho, proceeding on a systematic plan, performed his task very creditably, completing the work, which forms two quarto volumes, in 1825, the original text and 57 plates being relegated to the end of the second volume as a sup- plement. His portion is illustrated by 299 coloured plates that, wretched as they are, have been continually reproduced in various text-books — a fact possibly due to their subjects having been judiciously selected. It is. a tradition that, this work not being favourably regarded by the authorities of the Paris Museum, its draughtsman and author were refused closer access to the specimens required, and had to draw and describe them through the glass as they stood on the shelves of the cases. In 1827 Jardine and Selby began a series of Illustrations of Ornithology^ the several parts of which appeared at long and irregular intervals, so that it was not until 1835 that three volumes containing 150 plates were completed. Then they set about a Second Series, which, forming a single volume with 53 plates, was finished in 1843.^ These authors, being zealous amateur artists, were for the most part their own draughtsmen and engravers. In 1828 James Wilson began, under the title of Illustrations of Zoology, the publication of a series of his own drawings (which he did not, however, himself engrave) with corresponding letterpress. Of the 36 plates illustrating this volume, a small folio, 20 are devoted to Ornithology, and contain figures, not very successful, of several species rare at the time. Though the three works last mentioned fairly come under the same category as the Planches Enluminees and the Planches Golorie'es, no one of them can be properly deemed their rightful heir. The claim to that succession was made in 1845 by Des Murs for his Iconogrcqjhie Ornitho- logique, which, containing 72 plates by Prevot and Oudart^ (the latter of whom had marvellously improved in his drawings since he worked with Vieillot), was completed in 1849. Simultaneously with this Du Bus began a work on a plan precisely similar, the Esquisses Ornithologiqices, illustrated by Severeyns, which, however, stopped short in 1849 with its 37th plate, while the letterpress unfortunately does not go beyond that belonging to the 20th. In 1866 the succession was again taken up by the Exotic Ornithology of Messrs. Sclater and Salvin, containing 100 plates, representing 104 species, all from Central or South America, which are neatly executed by Mr. Smit. Tlie accompanying letterpress is in some places copious, and useful lists of the species of various genera are occasionally subjoined, adding to the definite value of the work, which, forming one volume, was completed in 1869. Lastly here miist be mentioned Rowley's Ornithological Miscellany, in three quarto volumes, profusely illustrated, which appeared between 1875 and 1878. The contents are as varied as the authorship, and, most of the leading English ornithologists having contributed to the work, some of the papers are extremely good, while in the plates, which are in Mr. ^ Cf. SherlDorn, Ibis, 1894, p. 326. ^ On the title-page credit is given to the latter alone, but only two-thirds of the plates (from pi. 25 to the end) bear his name. 28 DICTION AR V OF BIRDS Keulemans's best manner, many rare species of Birds are figured, some of tliem for tlie first time. All the works lately named have been purposely treated at some length, since being costly they are not easily accessible. The few next to be mentioned, being of smaller size (octavo), may be within reach of more persons, and therefore can be passed over in a briefer fashion without detriment. In many ways, however, they are nearly as important. Swainson's Zoological Illustrations, in three volumes, containing 182 plates, whereof 70 represent Birds, appeared between 1820 and 1821, and in 1829 a Second Series of the same was begun by him, which, extending to another three volumes, contained 48 more plates of Birds out of 136, and was completed in 1833. All the figures Avere drawn by the author, who as an ornithological artist had no rival in his time. Every plate is not beyond criticism, but his worst drawings shew more knowledge of bird-life than do the best of his English or French con- temporaries. A work of somewhat similar character, but one in which the letterpress is of greater value, is the Centurie Zoologique of Lesson, a single volume that though bearing the date 1830 on its title-page, is believed to have been begun in 1829,^ and was certainly not finished until 1831. It received the benefit of Isidore Geoffroy St.-Hilaire's assistance. Notwithstanding its name it only contains 80 plates, but of them 42, all by Pretre and in his usual stift" style, represent Birds. Concurrently with this volume appeared Lesson's Traite d' Ornithologie, which is dated 1831, and may perhaps be here most conveniently mentioned. Its professedly systematic form strictly relegates it to another group of works, but the presence of an " Atlas " (also in octavo) of 119 plates to some extent justifies its notice in this place. Between 1831 and 1834 the same author brought out, in continuation of his Centurie, his Illustrations de Zoologie with 60 plates, 20 of which represent Birds. In 1832 Kittlitz began to publish some Kupfertafeln zur Natur- geschichte der Vdgel, in which many new species are figured ; but the work came to an end with its 36th plate in the following year. In 1845 Reichenbach commenced with his Praktische Naturgescliiclde der Vogel the extraordinary series of illustrated publications which, under titles far too numerous here to repeat, ended in or about 1855, and are commonly \no\vn q.o\\&c\ay&\j a.?,}!!?, Vollstdndigste Naturgescliichte der Vogel." Herein are contained more than 900 coloured and more than 100 un coloured plates, which are crowded with the figures of Birds, a large proportion of them reduced copies from other works, and especially those of Gould. It now behoves us to turn to general and particularly systematic works in which plates, if they exist at all, form but an accessory to the text. These need not detain us for long, since, however well some of them may have been executed, regard being had to their epoch, and whatever repute some of them may have achieved, they are, so far as general information and especially classification is concerned, wholly 1 In 1828 he had brought out, under the title of Manuel cP (yrnithologie, two handy duodecimos which are very good of their kind. - Technically speaking they are in quarto, but their size is so small tliat they may be well spoken of here, lu 1879 Dr. A. B. Meyer brought out an IihIcc to tbeni. INTRODUCTION 2g obsolete, and most of tliem almost useless except as matters of antiquarian interest. It will be enough merely to name Dumeril's Zoologie Analytique (1806) and Gravenliorst's Vergleichende Uebersicht des linneischen und einiger neuern zoologischen Systeme (1807); nor need we linger over Shaw's General Zoology, a pretentious compilation continued by Stephens. The last seven of its fourteen volumes include the Class Aves, and the first part of them appeared in 1809, but, the original author dying in 1815, when only two volumes of Birds were published, the remainder was brought to an end in 1826 by his successor, who afterwards became well known as an entomologist. The engravings which these volumes contain are mostly bad copies, often of bad figures, though many are piracies from Bewick, and the whole is a most unsatisfactory performance. Of a very different kind is the next we have to notice, the Prodromus Systematis Mammalium et Avium of Illiger, published at Berlin in 1811, which must in its day have been a valuable little manual, and on many points it may now be consulted to advantage — the characters of the genera being admirably given, and good explanatory lists of the technical terms of Ornithology furnished. The classification was quite new, and made a step distinctly in advance of anything that had before appeared.^ In 1816 Vieillot published at Paris an Analyse d'une nouvelle Ornithologie elementaire, containing a method of classification which he had tried in vain to get printed before, both in Turin and in London.^ Some of the ideas in this are said to have been taken from Illiger ; but the two systems seem to be wholly distinct. Yieillot's was afterwards more fully expounded in the series of articles which he contributed between 1816 and 1819 to the Second Edition of the Nouveau Didionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, containing much valuable information. The views of neither of these systematizers pleased Temminck, who in 1817 replied rather sharply to Vieillot in some Observations sur la Classification metho- dique des Oiseaux, a pamphlet published at Amsterdam, and prefixed to the second edition of his Manuel d' Ornithologie, which appeared in 1820, an Analyse du Systeme General d' Ornithologie. This proved a great success, and his arrangement, though by no means simple,^ was not only adopted by many ornithologists of almost every country, but still has some adherents. The following year Kanzani of Bologna, in his Elementi di ^ Illiger may be considered the founder of the school of nomenclatural purists. He would not tolerate any of the " barbarous " generic terms adopted by other writers, though some had been in use for many years. ^ The method was communicated to the Turin Academy, 10th January 1814, and was ordered to be printed {Mem. Ac. Sc. Turin, 1813-14, p. xxviii.) ; but, through the derangements of that stormy period, the order was never carried out (Mem. Accad. Sc. Torino, xxiii. p. xcvii.). The minute-book of the Linnean Society of London shews that his Prolusio was read at meetings of that Society between 15th November 1814 and 21st February 1815. Why it was not at once accepted is not told, but the entry respecting it, which must be of much later date, in the " Register of Papers " is " Published already." It is due to Vieillot to mention these facts, as he has been accused of publishing his method in haste to anticipate some of Cuvier's views, but he might well complain of the delay in London. Some reparation has been made to his memory by the reprinting of his Analyse by the Willughby Society. ^ He recognized sixteen Orders of I3irds, while Vieillot had been content with five, and lUiger with seven. d 30 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS Zoologia — a very respectable compilation — came to treat of Birds, and tlien followed to some extent tlie plan of De Blainville and Merrem (concerning wliicli mucli more lias to be said by and by) placing the "StrntMous" Birds in an Order by themselves.^ In 1827 Wagler brought out the first part of a Systema Avium, in this form never com- pleted, consisting of 49 detached monographs of as many genera, the species of which are most elaborately described. The arrangement he subsequently adopted for them and for other groups is to be found in his Natilrliches System der Amjjhibien (pp. 77-128), published in 1830, and is too fanciful to require any further attention. The several attempts at system-making by Kaup, from his Allgemeine Zoologie in 1829 to his Ueher Classification der Vogel in 1849, were equally arbitrary and abortive ; but his Skizzirte Entioickelungs-Geschiclite in 1829 must be here named, as it is so often quoted on account of the number of new genera which the peculiar views he had embraced compelled him to invent. These views he shared more or less with Vigors and Swainson, and to them attention will be immediately especially invited, while consideration of the scheme gradually developed from 1831 ouward by Charles Lucien Bonaparte, and still not without its influence, is deferred until we come to treat of the rise and progress of what we may term the reformed school of Ornitho- logy. Yet injustice would be done to one of the ablest of those now to be called the old masters of the science if mention were not here made of the Conspectus Generum Avium, begun in 1850 by the naturalist last named, with the help of Schlegel, and imfortunately interrupted by its author's death six years later. ^ The systematic publications of George Eobert Gray, so long in charge of the ornithological collection of the British Museum, began with A List of the Genera of Birds published in 1840. This, having been closely, though by no means in a hostile spirit, criticized by Strickland {Aom. Nat. Hist. vi. p. 410 ; vii. pp. 26 and 159), was followed by a Second Edition in 1841, in which nearly all the corrections of the reviewer were adopted, and in 1844 began the publica- tion of jDie Genera of Birds, beautifully illustrated — first by Mitchell and afterwards by Mr. Wolf — which will always keep Gray's name in remembrance. The enormous labour required for this work seems scarcely to have been appreciated, though it remains to this day one of the most useful books in an ornithologist's library. Yet it must be confessed that its author was hardly an ornithologist but for the accident of his calling. He was a thoroughly conscientious clerk, devoted to his duty and unsparing of trouble. However, to have conceived the idea of executing a work on so grand a scale as this — it forms three folio volumes, and contains 185 coloured and 148 uncoloured plates, with references to upwards of 2400 generic names — was in itself a mark of genius, and it was brought to a successful conclusion in 1849.^ Costly as it necessarily 1 The classification of Latreille in 1825 {Families Naturelles du Regnc AnimaU pp. 67-88) needs naming only, for the author, great as an entomologist, had no special knowledge of Birds, and his greatest merit, that of placing 0_pistlwcomus next to the Gallinie, was perhaps a happy accident. - To this indispensalde work a good index was supplied in 1865 by Dr. Finsch. ^ Capt. Thomas Browne's lUuslraUon of the Genera of Birds, begun in 1845 in imitation of Gray's work, is discreditable to all concerned with it. It soon ceased to INTRODUCTION 31 was, it lias been of great service to working ornithologists. In 1855 Gray brought out, as one of the Museum publications, A Catalogue of the Genera and Subgenera of Birds, a handy little volume, naturally founded on the larger works. Its chief drawback is that it does not give any more reference to the authority for a generic term than the name of its inventor aiid the year of its application, though of course more precise information would have at least doubled the size of the book. The same deficiency became still more apparent when, between 1869 and 1871, he published his Hand-List of Genera and Species of Birds in three octavo volumes (or parts, as they are called). Never was a book better named, for the working ornithologist must almost live with it in his hand, and though he has constantly to deplore its shortcomings, one of which especially is the wrong principle on which its index is constructed, he should be thankful that such a work exists. Many of its defects are, or perhaps it were better said ought to be, supplied by Giebel's Thesaurus Ornithologise, also in three volumes (1872-77), a work admirably planned, but the execution of which, whether through the author's carelessness or the printer's fault, or a combination of both, is lamentably disappointing. Again and again it will afford the enquirer who consults it valuable hints, but he must be mindful never to trust a single reference in it until it has been verified. It remains to warn the reader also that, useful as are both this work and those of Gray, their utility is almost solely confined to experts. With the exception to which reference has just been made, scarcely any of the ornithologists hitherto named indulged their imagination in theories or speculations. Nearly all were content to prosecute their labours in a plain fashion consistent with common sense, plodding steadily onwards in their efforts to describe and group the various species, as one after another they were made known. But this was not always to be, and now a few words must be said respecting a theory which was pro- mulgated with great zeal by its upholders during the end of the first and early part of the second quarter of the present century, and for some years seemed likely to carry all before it. The success it gained was doubtless due in some degree to the difficulty which most men had in comprehending it, for it was enwrapped in alluring mystery, but more to the confidence with which it was announced as being the long looked- for key to the wonders of creation, since its promoters did not hesitate to term it the discovery of " the Natural System," though they condescended, by way of explanation to less exalted intellects than their own, to allow it the more moderate appellation of the Circular or Quinary System. A comparison of the relation of created beings to a number of inter- secting circles is as old as the days of Nieremberg, who in 1635 wrote (Ristoria Nature, lib. iii. cap. 3) — " Nullus hiatus est, nulla fractio, nulla dispersio formarum, invicem connexa sunt velut annulus annulo " ; but it is almost clear that he was thinking only of a chain. In 1806 Fischer de Waldheim, in his Tableaux Syno2)tiques de Zoognosie (p. 181), quoting appear and remains incomplete. Had it been finished it would have been useless. The author had before (18-31) attempted a similar act of piracy upon Wilson's American Ornithology. 32 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS Nieremberg, extended his figure of speech, and, while justly deprecating the notion that the series of forms belonging to any particular group of creatures — the Mammalia was that whence he took his instance — could be placed in a straight line, imagined the various genera to be arrayed in a series of contiguous circles around Man as a centre. Though there is nothing to shew that Fischer intended, by what is here said, to do any- thing else than illustrate more fully the marvellous interconnexion of different animals, or that he attached any realistic meaning to his metaphor, his words were eagerly caught up by the prophet of the new faith. This was William Sharpe Macleay, a man of education and real genius, who in 1819 and 1821 brought out a work under the title of Horai Entomologicae, which was soon after hailed by Vigors as containing a new revelation, and applied by him to Ornithology in some " Observa- tions on the Natural Affinities that connect the Orders and Families of Birds," read before the Linnean Society of London in 1823, and after- wards published in its Transactions (xiv. pp. 395-517). In the following year Vigors returned to the subject in some papers published in the recently established Zoological Journal, and found an energetic condisciple and coadjutor in Swainson, who, for more than a dozen years — to the end, in fact, of his career as an ornithological writer — was instant in season and out of season in pressing on all his readers the views he had, through Vigors, adopted from Macleay, though not without some modi- fication of detail if not of principle. What these views were it would be manifestly improper for a sceptic to state except in the terms of a believer. Their enunciation must, therefore, be given in Swainson's own words, though it must be admitted that space cannot be found here for the diagrams, which it was alleged were necessary for the right under- standing of the theory. This theory, as originally propounded by Macleay, was said by Swainson in 1835 (Geogr. and Classific. of Animals, p, 202) to have consisted of the following propositions :^ — " 1. That the series of natural animals is continuous, forming, as it were, a circle ; so that, upon commencing at any one given point, and thence tracing all the modifications of structure, we shall be imperceptibly led, after passing through numerous forms, again to the point from which we started. " 2. That no groups are natural which do not exhibit, or shew an evident tend- ency to exhibit, such a circular series. " 3. That the primary divisions of every large group are ten, five of which are composed of comparatively large circles, and five of smaller : these latter being termed osculant, and being intermediate between the former, which they serve to connect. " 4. That there is a tendency in such groups as are placed at the opposite points of a circle of affinity ' to meet each other.' " 5. That one of the five larger groups into which every natural circle is divided ' bears a resemblance to all the rest, or, more strictly speaking, consists of types which represent those of each of the four other groups, together with a type peculiar to itself.' " As subsequently modified by Swainson (torn. cit. pp. 224, 225), the foregoing propositions take the following form : — ^ I prefer giving them here in Swainson's version, because he seems to have set them forth more clearly and concisely than Macleay ever did, and, moreover, Swain- son's application of them to Ornithology — a branch of science that lay outside of Macleay 's proper studies — appears to be more suitable to the present occasion. INTRODUCTION jj " I. That every natural series of beings, in its progress from a given point, either actually returns, or evinces a tendency to return, again to that point, thereby forming a circle. "II. The primary circular divisions of every group are three actually, or five apparently. "III. The contents of such a circular group are symbolically (or analogically) represented by the contents of all other circles in the animal kingdom. " IV. That these primary divisions of every group are characterized by definite peculiarities of form, structure and economy, which, under diversified modifications, are uniform throughout the animal kingdom, and are therefore to be regarded as the PRIMARY TYPES OP NATURE. "V. That the difi'erent ranks or degrees of circular groups exhibited in the animal kingdom are nine in number, each being involved within the other." Though, as above stated, the theory thus promulgated owed its temporary success chiefly to the extraordinary assurance and pertinacity with which it was urged upon a public generally incapable of under- standing what it meant, that it received some support from men of science must be admitted. A " circular system " was advocated by the eminent botanist Fries, and the views of Macleay met with the partial approbation of the celebrated entomologist Kirby, while at least as much may be said of the imaginative Oken, whose mysticism far surpassed that of the Quinarians. But it is obvious to every one who nowadays in- dulges in the profitless pastime of studjdng their writings that, as a whole, they failed in grasping the essential difference between homology (or " affinity," as they generally termed it) and analogy (which is only a learned name for an uncertain kind of resemblance) — though this differ- ence had been fully understood and set forth by Aristotle himself — and, moreover, that in seeking for analogies on which to base their foregone conclusions they were often put to hard shifts. Another singular fact is that they often seemed to be totally unaware of the tendency if not the meaning of some of their own expressions ; thus Macleay could write, and doubtless in perfect good faith {Trans. Linn. Soc. xvi. p. 9, note), " Naturalists have nothing to do with mysticism, and but little with a priori reasoning." Yet his followers, if not he himself, were ever making use of language in the highest degree metaphorical, and were always exj)laining facts in accordance with preconceived opinions. Fleming, already the author of a harmless and extremely orthodox PJiilosojjhy of Zoology, pointed out in 1829 in the Quarterly Review {xli. pp. 302-327) some of the fallacies of Macleay's method, and in return provoked from him a reply, in the form of a letter addressed to Vigors On the Dying Struggle of the Dichotomous System, couched in lan- guage the force of which no one even at the present day can deny, though to the modern naturalist its invective power contrasts ludicrously with the strength of its ratiocination. But, confining ourselves to what is here our special business, it is to be remarked that perhaps the heaviest blow dealt at these strange doctrines was that delivered by Eennie, who, in an edition of Montagu's Ornithological Dictionary (pp. xxxiii.-lv.), published in 1831 and again issued in 1833, attacked the Quinary System, and especially its application to Ornithology by Vigors and Swainson, in a way that might perhaps have demolished it, had not the author mingled with his undoubtedly sound reasoning much that is j^ DICTION AR Y OF BIRDS foreign to any question with which a naturalist, as such, ought to deal — - though that herein he was only following the example of one of his opponents, who had constantly treated the subject in like manner, is to be allowed. This did not hinder Swainson, who had succeeded in getting the ornithological portion of the first zoological work ever pub- lished at the expense of the British Government (namely, the Fauna Boreali-Americana) executed in accordance with his own opinions, from maintaining them more strongly than ever in several of the volumes treat- ing of Natural History which he contributed to the Cabinet Gydopeedia — among others that from which we have just given some extracts — and in what may be deemed the culmination in England of the Quinary System, the volume of the "Naturalist's Library" on The Natural Arrangement and History of Flycatchers (1838), an unhappy performance mentioned in the body of the present work (p, 274, note). This seems to have been his last attempt ; for, two years later, his Bihliograi^hy of Zoology shews little trace of his favourite theory, though nothing he had uttered in its support was retracted. Appearing almost simultaneously with that work, an ar4;icle by Strickland {Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 2, iv. pp. 219-226), entitled Observations upon the Affinities and Analogies of Organized Beings, administered to the theory a shock from which it never recovered, though attempts were now and then made by its adherents to revive it ; and, even ten years or more later, Kaup, one of the few foreign orni- thologists who had embraced Quinary principles, was by mistaken kind- ness allowed to publish Monographs of the Birds-of-Prey (Jardine's Gontr. Orn. 1849, pp. 68-75, 96-121; 1850, pp. 51-80; 1851, pp. 119-130; 1852, pp. 103-122 ; and Trans. Zool. Soc. iv, pp. 201-260), in which its absurdity reached the climax. The mischief caused by this theory of a Quinary System was very great, but was chiefly confined to Britain, for (as already stated) the extraordinary views of its adherents found little favour on the continent of Europe. The purely artificial character of the System of Linnaeus and his successors had been perceived, and men were at a loss to find a substitute for it. The new doctrine, loudly proclaiming the discovery of a " Natural " System, led away many from the steady practice which should have followed the teaching of Cuvier (though he in Ornithology had not been able to act up to the principles he had laid down) and from the extended study of Comparative Anatomy. Moreover, it veiled the honest attempts that were making both in France and Germany to find real grounds for establishing an improved^ state of things, and conse- quently the labours of De Blainville, Etienne Geoftroy St.-Hilaire, and L'Herminier, of Merrem, Johannes Miiller and Nitzsch — to say nothing of others — were almost wholly unknown on this side of the Channel, and even the value of the investigations of British ornithotoni- ists of high merit, such as Macartney and Macgillivray, was almost completely overlooked. True it is that there were not wanting other men in these islands whose common sense refused to accept the meta- phorical doctrine and the mystical jargon of the Quinarians, but so strenuously and persistently had the latter asserted their infallibility, and so vigorously had they assailed any who ventured to doubt it, that INTRODUCTION 35 most peaceable ornithologists found it best to bend to tbe furious blast, and in some sort to acquiesce at least in the phraseology of the self- styled interpreters of Creative Will. But, while thus lamenting this unfortunate perversion into a mistaken channel of ornithological energy, we must not over-blame those who caused it. Macleay indeed never pretended to a high position in this branch of science, his tastes lying in the direction of Entomology ; but few of their countrymen knew more of Birds than did Swainson and Vigors ; and, while the latter, as editor for many years of the Zoological Journal, and the first Secretary of the Zoological Society, has especial cla,ims to the regard of all zoologists, so the former's indefatigable pursuit of Natural History, and conscientious labour in its behalf — among other ways by means of his graceful pencil — deserve to be remembered as a set-off against the injury he unwittingly caused. It is now incumbent upon us to take a rapid survey of the orni- thological works which come more or less under the designation of " Faunee " ; ^ but these are so numerous that it will be necessary to limit this survey, as before indicated, to those countries alone which form the homes of English people, or are commonly visited by them in ordinary travel. Beginning with our Antipodes, it is hardly needful to go further back than Sir Walter Buller's beautiful Birds of New Zealand (4to, 1872-73 ; ed. 2, 2 vols. 1888), with coloured plates by Mr. Keulemans, and the same author's Manual of the Birds of New Zealand (8vo, 1882), founded on the former ; but justice requires that mention be made of the labours of G. E. Gray, first in the Appendix to Dieffenbach's Travels in New Zealand (1843) and then in the ornithological portion of the Zoology of the Voyage of H. M.S. ^Erebus' and ^Terror,' begun in 1844, but left unfinished from the following year until completed by Dr. Sharpe in 1876. A considerable number of valuable papers on the Ornithology of the country by Sir James Hector and Sir Julius Von Haast, Prof. Hutton, Mr. Potts and others are to be found in the Trans- actions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute. Passing to Australia, we have the first good description of some of its Birds in the several old voyages and in Latham's works before men- tioned. Shaw's Zoology of New Holland (4 to, 1794), though unfinished, added that of a few more, as did J. W. Lewin's Birds of New Holland (4to, London : 1808), of which, under the title of A Natural History of the Birds of Neiv South Wales, a second edition, with 26 instead of 18 plates, appeared in 1822, the year after the author's death, and a third with additions by Eyton, Gould and others in 1838. Gould's great Birds of Australia has been already named, and he subsequently repro- duced with some additions the text of that work under the title of Handbook to the Birds of Australia (2 vols. 8vo, 1865). In 1866 Mr. Diggles commenced a similar publication. The Ornithology of Australia, but the coloured plates are not comparable with those of his predecessor. This is still incomplete, though the parts that appeared were collected to ■^ A very useful list of more general scope is given as the Appendix to an Address by Mr. Sclater to the British Association in 1875 (Report, pt. ii. pp. 114-133). 36 DICTION AR V OF BIRDS form two volumes and issued (Brisbane : 1877) witli title-pages. Many- notices of Australian Birds by Dr. Eamsay, Messrs. A. J. North, K. H. Bennett and others are to be found in the Records of the Australian Museum, the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of New South Wales, of the Royal Society of Victoria and of that of Tasmania.^ Papers by Mr. Devis on the ornithology of British New Guinea have appeared in the Annual Reports on that Dependency presented to the parliament of Queensland, and in their original form are hardly accessible to the ordinary ornithologist. Coming to our Indian possessions, and beginning with Ceylon, we have Kelaart's Prodromus Faunae Zeylanicx (8vo, 1852), and the admirable Birds of Ceylon by Col. Legge (4to, 1878-80), with coloured plates by Mr. Keulemans of all the peculiar species. One can hardly name a book that has been more conscientiously executed than this. In regard to continental India many of the more important publications have been named in the body of this work (pages 356, 357), but Blyth's Mammals and Birds of Burma (8vo, 1875) ^ should be especially noticed, as well as the fact that since the return of Mr. Gates to the East, the ornithological part of the Fauna of British India is being continued by Mr. Blanford, though Jerdon's classical work will always remain of value, notwith- standing that it no longer reigns supreme as the sole comprehensive work on the Grnithology of the Peninsula.^ In regard to South Africa there is little to be added to the works mentioned (pages 347, 351, 352); but in 1896 Capt. Shelley brought out a List of African Birds, which, it is hoped, may be the forerunner of a series of volumes on Ethiopian Ornithology. It is much to be regretted that of the numerous sporting books that treat of this part of the world so few give any important information respecting the Birds. Of special works relating to the British West Indies, "Waterton's well-known Wanderings has passed through several editions since its first appearance in 1825, and must be mentioned here, though, strictly speaking, much of the country he traversed was not British territory. To Dr. Cabanis we are indebted for the ornithological results of Richard Schomburgk's researches given in the third volume (pp. 662-765) of the latter's Reisen im Britisch- Guiana (8vo, 1848), and then to L^otaud's Oiseaux de Vile de la Trinidad (8vo, 1866). Of the Antilles there is to be named Gosse's excellent Birds of Jamaica (12mo, 1847), together with its Illustrations (sm. fol. 1849) beautifully executed by him. A nominal ^ Dr. Ramsay has a Tabular List of Australian Birds (ed. 2, Sydney: 1888). Mr. North's contributions have been chiefly on Nidification and Oology, though the ornithology of the recent " Horn Expedition " has fallen to his share. Mr. Archibald J. Campbell's Nests and Eggs of Australian Birds (Melbourne : 1883) deserves especial mention. A convenient Manual of Australian Ornithology is still a great want, and, if supplied, would undoubtedly advance the knowledge of the wonderful bird-population of that country, and induce the inhabitants to take greater interest in it. But the work to be well done must be by Australian hands. - This is a posthumous publication, nominally forming an extra number of the Journal of tlie Asiatic Society. ^ A multitude of papers, some very important, on Indian Ornitholog}^ appeared in Stray Feathers, a periodical edited between 1877 and 1882 by Mr. A. 0. Hume, of which the eleventh and last volume remains unfinished. INTRODUCTION S7 list, witli references, of the Birds of the island is contained in the Handbook of Jamaica for 1881 (pp. 103-117) ; while in 1885 Mr. Cory,i who in 1880 had brought out, at Boston (ed. 2, 1890), a work on the Birds of the Bahama Islands (not strictly Antillean), published a List of the Birds of the West Indies, with a revised edition in the following year, and one still more elaborate, so that the words " List of " were dropped from the title, in 1889. So admirable a " List of Faunal Publications relating to North American Ornithology" up to the year 1878 has been given by Dr. Coues as an appendix to his Birds of the Colorado Valley (pp. 567-784) that nothing more of the kind is wanted except to notice some of the chief separate works which have since appeared, for so prolific are our American relations that it would be impossible to mention many. Among those that cannot be overlooked are Mr. Stearns's N'eio England Bird Life (2 vols. 8vo, 1881-83), revised by Dr, Coues, and the several editions of his own Chech List of North American Birds (1882), and Key to North American Birds.'^ Then there is the great North American Birds of the late Prof. Baird, Dr. Brewer and Mr. Ridgway (1874-84), and the Manual of North American Birds (1887 ; ed. 2, 1896) by the last of these authors ; beside Capt. Bendire's Life Histories of North American Birds (4to, Washington : 1892), beautifully illustrated by figures of their eggs. Yet some of the older works are still of sufficient importance to be especially recorded here, and especially that of Alexander Wilson, whose American Ornithology, originally published between 1808 and 1814, has gone through many editions, of which mention should be made of those issued in Great Britain by Jameson (4 vols. 16mo, 1831), and Jardine (3 vols. 8vo, 1832). The former of these has the entire text, but no plates ; the latter reproduces the plates, but the text is in places much condensed, though excellent notes are added. A continuation of Wilson's work, under the same title and on the same plan, was issued by Bonaparte between 1825 and 1833, and most of the later editions include the work of both authors. The works of Audubon, with their continuations by Cassin and Mr. Elliot, and the Fauna Boreali- Americana ^ In the same year Mr. Cory also produced the Birds of Haiti and St. Domingo, supplying a want that had been long felt, since nothing had really been known of the ornithology of Hispaniola for nearly a century, Gundlach, Lembeye and Poey are the chief authorities on that of Cuba, while the first has also treated of the Birds of Porto Rico. " The second and revised edition (the first having appeared in 1872, while a fifth is now in preparation) of this useful work was published in 1884, and contains (j^p. 234, 235) a classification of North-American Birds, though being limited to them will not need detailed notice hereafter ; but I may remark that the author very justly points out (p. 227) the difference, overlooked by many writers of to-day, between "natural analysis" and the "artificial keys " now so much in vogue, the latter being merely " an attempt to take the student by a ' short cut ' to the name and position in the ornithological system of any specimen " he may wish to determine. Under the title of Handbook of Field and General Ornithology, the two portions of this work most valuable to the non-American reader were republished in London in 1890, and deserve to be far better known among the ornithologists of all countries than they seem to be, for they give much excellent information not to be found elsewhere. Many writers on Birds in newspapers and magazines would be often spared some silly mistakes were they to make acquaintance with Dr. Coues's little book. 38 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS of Eichardson and Swainson have already been noticed ; but tbey need naming here, as also does Nnttall's Manual of the Ornithology of the United States and of Canada (2 vols. 1832-34 ; vol. i. ed. 2, 1840); tlie Birds of Long Island (8vo, 1844) by Giraud, remarkable for its excellent account of tbe babits of sbore-birds ; and of course tbe Birds of North America (4to, 1858) by Baird, with the co-operation of Cassin and Lawrence, which originally formed a volume (ix.) of what are known as the " Pacific Eailroad Eeports." Apart from these special works the scientific journals of Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington contain innumerable papers on the Ornithology of the country, while in 1876 the Bulletin of the Nuttall Ornithological Club began to appear, and continued until 1884, when it was superseded by TJie Auk, established solely for the promotion of Ornithology in America, and numbering among its supporters almost every American ornithologist of repute, its present editors being Dr. Allen and Mr. F. M. Chapman. Of Canada, unfortunately, not much is to be said. It is hard to under- stand why zoological studies have never found such favour there as further to the southward, but this is undoubtedly the fact, and no ornithological work can be cited of which the Dominion as a whole can be proud, though Mr. M'llwraithe's Birds of Ontario, of which an enlarged edition appeared in 1894, is a fair piece of local work. Eeturning to the Old World, among the countries whose Ornithology will most interest British readers we have first Iceland, the fullest — indeed the only full — account of the Birds of which is Faber's Prodromus der islandischen Ornithologie (8vo, 1822), though the island has since been visited by several good ornithologists, — Proctor, Krtiper and WoUey among them. A list of its Birds, with some notes, bibliographical and biological, has been given as an Appendix to Mr. Baring-Gould's Iceland, its Scenes and Sagas (8vo, 1862) ; and Mr. Shepherd's North-xoest Peninsida of Iceland (8vo, 1867) recounts a somewhat profitless expedition made thither expressly for ornithological objects.^ For the Birds of the Fteroes there is Herr H. C. Miiller's Fseroernes Fuglefauna (8vo, 1862), of which a German translation has appeared.^ The Ornithology of Norway has been treated in a great many papers by Herr Collett, some of which may be said to have been separately published as Norges Fugle (8vo, 1868 ; with a supplement, 1871), and The Ornithology of Northern Norioay (8vo, 1872) — this last in English, while an English translation by Mr. A. H. Cocks (London: 1894) has been published of one of the author's latest works, a popular account of Bird-Life in Arctic Norway, communicated to the Second International Congress of Ornithology in 1892. For Scandi- navia generally the latest work is Herr Collin's Skandinaviens Fugle (8vo, ^ Two papers by Messrs. Backhouse aud W. E. Clarke, and Carter and Skater (Ibis, 1885, p. 364 ; 1886, p. 45) should be consulted, as well as cue by Messrs. H. J. and C. E. Pearson (oj). cit. 1895, pp. 237-249), which gives a list of the species hitherto recorded there. Herr Grondal has also a list and an ornithological report on Iceland [Ornis, 1886, pp. 355, 601), with a dissertation on birds' names [op. ctY. 1887, p. 587). ^ Journ. fur Oi-n. 1869, pp. 107, 341, 381. One may almost say an English translation also, for Col. Feilden's contribution to the Zoologist for 1872 on the same subject gives the most essential part of Herr Miiller's information. INTRODUCTION 39 1873), being a greatly bettered edition of the very moderate Danmarks Fugle of Kjccrbolling ; but the ornithological portion of Nilsson's Skandi navisk Fauna, Foglarna (3rd ed. 2 vols. 8vo, 1858) is of great merit; while the text of Sundevall's Svenska Foglarna (obi. fol. 1856-73), un- fortunately unfinished at his death, but completed in 1886 by Prof. Kinberg, and Herr Holmgren's Skandinaviens Foglar (2 vols. 8vo, 1866- 75) deserve naming. Works on the Birds of Germany are far too numerous to be recounted. That of the two Naumanns, already mentioned, and yet again to be spoken of, stands at the head of all, and perhaps at the head of the "Faunal" works of all countries. For want of space it must here suffice simply to name some of the ornithologists who in this century have elaborated, to an extent elsewhere unknown, the science as regards their own country : — Altum, Baldamus, Bechstein, Berlepsch, Blasius (father and two sons), BoUe, Borggreve, whose Vogel-Fauna von Norddeutscliland (8vo, 1869) contains what is practically a bibliographical index to the subject, Brehm (father and sons), Von Droste, Gatke, Gloger, Hintz, Holtz, Alexander and Eugen von Homeyer, Jackel, Koch, Konig-Warthausen, Ivriiper, Kutter, Landbeck, Landois, Leisler, Leverklihn, Von Maltzan, Matschie, Bernard Meyer, Von der Miihle, Neumann, Tobias, Johann Wolf and Zander.^ Were we to extend the list beyond the boundaries of the German empire, and include the ornithologists of Austria, Bohemia and the other states subject to the same monarch, the number would be nearly doubled ; but that would overpass our proposed limits, though Von Pelzeln must be named. ^ Passing onward to Switzerland, we must con- tent ourselves by referring to the list of works, forming a Bibliographia Ornithologica Helvetica, drawn up by Dr. Stolker for Dr. Fatio's Bulletin de la Societe' Ornithologique Suisse (ii. pp. 90-119); but the latter has already published a Catalogue Distributif of Swiss Birds, of which a third edition appeared in 1892, and in conjunction with Dr. Studer is bringing out a more elaborate work on the ornithology of the country, of which two parts have appeared. As to Italy, we have to name here the Fauna d' Italia, of which the second part, Uccelli (8vo, 1872), by Count T. Salvadori, contained an excellent bibliography of Italian works on the subject, while his Elenco degli Uccelli Italiani (Genova: 1887) is drawn up with his characteristic thoroughness. Then there is the posthumously published Ornitologia Italiana of Savi (3 vols, 8vo, 1873-77). But the country rejoices in what may be called an official Ornithology. This is the Avifauna Italica of Prof. Giglioli, and consists of four volumes pub- ^ This is of course no complete list of German ornithologists. Some of the most eminent of them have written scarcely a line on the Birds of their own country, as Cabanis (editor from 1853 to 1893 of the Journal fur Ornithologie), Finsch, Hartlaub, Hartert, Heine, A. Konig, Prince Max of Wied, A. B. Meyer, Nathusius, Nehrkorn, Reichenbach and Schalow among others. In 1889 Dr. Reichenow, of whom more hereafter, published a convenient Systematisches Verzeichniss der Vogel Deutschlands und des angrenzenden Mittel-Europas. ^ An ornithological bibliography of the Austrian- Hungarian dominions was printed in the Verhandhmgen of the Zoological and Botanical Society of Vienna for 1878, by Victor Ritter von Tschusi zu Schmidhofen. A similar bibliography of Russian Ornithology by Alexander Brandt was printed at St. Petersburg in 1877 or 1878. 40 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS lished at Florence between 1886 and 1891, in wMcli the subject is treated in the greatest detail, owing to the multitude of observers by whom the author was assisted, with the result that Ornithology stands in Italy on a footing different from that which it occupies in any other nation. But it is pleasing to observe that this oflficial recognition has not checked inde- pendent work, and the number of local Italian faunas is far too great to be here particularized.^ Coming to the Iberian peninsula, we must in default of separate works depart from our rule of not mentioning contribu- tions to journals, for of the former there are only Col. Irby's Ornithology of the Straits of Gibraltar (8vo, 1875 ; ed. 2, 1895) ^ and Mr, A. C. Smith's Spring Tour in Portugal ^ to be named, and these but partially cover the ■ground. However, Dr. A. E. Brehm has published a list of Sjjanish Birds (Allgem. deutsche Naturhist. Zeitung, iii. p. 431), and Tlie Ibis contains several excellent papers by Lord Lilford and by Mr. Saunders, the latter of whom there records (1871, p. 55) the few works on Ornithology by Spanish authors, and in the Bulletin de la Society Zoologique de France (i. p. 315 j ii. pp. 11, 89, 185) has given a list of the Spanish Birds known to him.* Eeturning northwards, we have of the Birds of the whole of France, apart from Western Europe, nothing of real importance more recent than the Oiseaux in Vieillot's Faune Frangaise (8vo, 1822-29) ; but there is a great number of local publications of which Mr. Saunders has furnished (Zoologist, 1878, pp. 95-99) a catalogue. Some of these have appeared in journals, but many have been issued separately. Those of most interest to English ornithologists naturally refer to Britanny, Normandy and Picardy, and are by Baillon, Benoist, Blandin, Bureau, Canivet, Chesnon, Degland, Demarle, De Norguet, Gentil, Hardy, Lemetteil, Lemonnicier, Lesauvage, Maignon, Marcotte, Nourry and Tasle, while perhaps the Orni- thologie Parisienne of M. Rene Paquet, under the pseudonym of Ner^e Quepat, should also be named. Of the rest the most important are the Ornithologie Provengale of Roux (2 vols. 4to, 1825-29) ; Risso's Histoire naturelle . . . . des environs de Nice (5 vols. 8vo, 1826-27) ; the Orni- thologie du Dauphin^ oi Bouteille and Labatie (2 vols. 8vo, 1843-44) ; the Ornithologie du Gard (8vo,^1840) and Faune Meridionale of Crespon (2 vols. 8vo, 1844) ; the Ornithologie de la Savoie of Bailly (4 vols. 8vo, 1853-54), and Les Eichesses ornithologiques du midi de la France (4to, 1859-61) of MM. Jaubert and Barthelemy-Lapommeraye. For Belgium the Faune Beige of Baron De Selys-Longchamps (8vo, 1842) long remained the ^ A compendium of Greelc and Turkish Ornithology by Drs. Kriiper and Hartlaub is contained in Mommsen's Griechische Jahrzeiten for 1875 (Heft III.). For other countries in the Levant there are Canon Tristram's Fauna and Flora of Palestine {4to, 1884) and Capt. Shelley's Handhooh to the Birds of Egypt (8%'o, 1872). " Mr. Abel Chapman's Wild Spain (London : 1893) contains a considerable quantity of ornithological information, chiefly from the sportsman's point of view. ^ In the final chapter of this work the author gives a list of Portuguese Birds, including beside those observed by him those recorded by Prof. Barboza du Bocage in the Gazeta Medica de Lishoa, 1861, pp. 17-21. ^ Certain papers published at Corunna by a Galician ornithologist require an explanation (c/. Sherborn, Ann. <£• Mag. Nat. Jlist. ser. 6, xiv. p. 151), whicli has not and proljably never will be given. INTRODUCTION 41 classical work, though the Planches coloriees des Oiseaux de la Belgiqice of the late M. Ch. F. Dubois (8vo, 1851-60) was so much more recent. To this followed, in 1861-64, a supplementary volume, which, by including species not found in Belgium, justified an extension of the title of the whole to Planches coloriees des Oiseaux de VEiirope ; while between 1876 and 1887, his son, Dr. Alphonse Dubois, devoted to Birds four volumes of his Faune illustre'e des Verte'bre's de la Belgique (gr. 8vo), a work remark- able for the introduction of small maps shewing the author's view of the geographical range of the several species. In regard to Holland we have Schlegel's De Vogels van Nederland (3 vols. 8vo, 1854-58; ed. 2, 2 vols. 1878), besides his De Dieren van Nederland: Vogels (8vo, 1861).^ Here it may be well to cast a glance on a few of the works that refer to Europe in general, the more so since most of them are of Continental origin. First we have the already-mentioned Manuel d' Ornithologie of Temminck, which originally appeared as a single volume in 1 8 1 5 ^ ; but was speedily superseded by the second edition of 1820, in two volumes. Two supplementary parts were issued in 1835 and 1840 respectively, and the work for many years deservedly maintained the highest position as the authority on European Ornithology — indeed in England it may almost without exaggeration be said to have been nearly the only foreign ornithological work known ; but, as may well be expected, grave defects are now to be discovered in it. Some of them were already manifest when one of its author's colleagues, Schlegel (who had been employed to write the text for Susemihl's plates, originally intended to illustrate Temminck's work), brought out his bilingual Revue critique des Oiseaux W Europe (8vo, 1844), a very remarkable volume, since it correlated and consolidated the labours of French and German, to say nothing of Russian, ornithologists. Of Gould's Birds of Europe (5 vols. fol. 1832-37) nothing need be added to what has been already said. The year 1849 saw the publication of Degland's Ornithologie Europeenne (2 vols. 8vo), a work fully intended to take the place of Temminck's ; but of which Bonaparte, in a caustic but well-deserved Revue Critique (12mo, 1850), said that the author had performed a miracle since he had worked without a collection of specimens and without a library. A second edition, revised by M. Gerbe (2 vols. 8vo, 1867), strove to remedy, and to some extent did remedy, the grosser errors of the first, but enough still remain to make few statements in the work trustworthy unless corroborated by other evidence. Meanwhile in England the late Dr. Bree in 1858 began the publication of The Birds of Europe not observed in the British Isles (4 vols. 8vo), which was completed in 1863, and in 1875 reached a second and improved edition (5 vols.). In 1870-1 Dr. Anton Fritsch brought out his Naturgeschichte der Vogel Europas (8vo, with atlas in folio) ; and in 1871 Messrs. Sharpe and Dresser began the publication of their Birds of Europe, which was finished by the latter alone in 1879 (8 vols. 4to), and is unques- tionably the most complete work of its kind, both for fulness of informa- tion and beauty of illustration — the coloured plates being nearly all by Mr. ■^ There are several important papers on Dutch Ornithology by Albarda, Blaauw, Btittikofer, Crommelin, Jentink and others. ^ Copies are said to exist bearing the date 1814. 42 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS Keulemans or Mr. Neale. In so huge an undertaking mistakes and omis- sions are of course to be found if any one likes the invidious task of seeking for them ; but many of the errors imputed to this work prove on investi- gation to refer to matters of opinion rather than of fact, while many more are explicable if we remember that while the work was in progress Ornithology was being prosecuted with unprecedented activity, and thus statements which were in accordance with the best information at the beginning of the period were found to need modification before it was ended. As a whole European ornithologists have been all but unanimously grateful to Mr. Dresser for the way in which he brought this enormous labour to a successful end. A Supplement to his work is now nearly finished. The late M. des Murs in 1886 completed his Description des Oiseaux d'Europe (4 vols. gr. 8vo), with coloured figures of the Birds and of their eggs, but it is rather a popular than a scientific work. The Contributions a la Faune ornithologique de VEurope Occidentale of the late M. Olphe-Galliard, contained in 41 fascicules between 1884 and 1892, is an important work, involving a vast amount of research, and composed in a highly original way. The author was well read in orui- thologicar literature, for he had the accomplishment, rare among his countrymen, of a good acquaintance with modern languages not his own, and was especially observant of the doings of foreign naturalists. Yet the work cannot be called wholly successful, and this chiefly, it would seem, through the want of autoptical acquaintance with many of the species treated, or at least with a sufficient series of specimens, whereby he has been led to rely too much on the descriptions of others, with the usual unsatisfactory result. Still the work fully deserves attention, and nothing need be said of the author's fanciful classification, for no one is likely to follow it. In 1890 Mr. Backhouse brought out a convenient little Handbook of European Birds.^ Coming now to works on British Birds only, the first of the present century that requires remark is Montagu's Ornithological Dictionary (2 vols. 8vo, 1802; supplement 1813), the merits of which have been so long and so fully acknowledged both abroad and at home that no further comment is here wanted. In 1831 Rennie brought out a modified edition of it (reissued in 1833), and Newman another in 1866 (reissued in 1883) ; but those who wish to know the author's views should consult the original. Next in order come the very inferior British Ornithology of Graves (3 vols. 8vo, 1811-21 ; ed. 2, 1821), and a better work with the same title by Hunt^ (3 vols. 8vo, 1815-22), published at Norwich, but never finished. Then we have Selby's Illustrations of British Ornithology, two folio volumes of coloui-ed plates engraved by himself, between 1821 and 1833, with letterpress also in two volumes (8vo, 1825-33), a second ■'• Herr Gatke's remarkable Vogehvarte Helgoland (Braunschweig: 1891), which treats of much more than European ornithology, has been elsewhere (Migration, p. 562) mentioned. It remains to say that a fair English translation by Mr. Rosenstock, with a preface by Mr. Harvie-Bi-own, has appeared under the title of Heligoland as an Ornithological Observatory (Edinburgh : 1895). " The text was written, I was told l)y the late Mr. Joseph Clarke, by R. C. Coxe, who was a schoolboy when it was begun, but died in 1863 Archdeacon of Lindisfarne. INTRODUCTION 43 edition of tlie first volume being also issued (1833), for the author, having yielded to the pressure of the "Quinarian" doctrines then in vogue, thought it necessary to adjust his classification accordingly, and it must be admitted that for information the second edition is best. In 1828 Fleming brought out his History of British Animals (8vo), in which the Birds are treated at considerable length (pp. 41-146), though not with great success. In 1835 Jenyns (afterwards Blomefield) produced an excellent Manual of British Vertebrate Animals, a volume (8vo) executed with great scientific skill, the Birds again receiving due attention (pp. 49-286), and the descriptions of the various species being as accurate as they are |terse.^ In the same year began the Coloured Illustrations of British Birds ami their Eggs of H. L. Meyer (4to), which was completed in 1843, whereof a second edition (7 vols. 8vo, 1842-50) was brought out, and subsequently (1852-57) a reissue of the latter. In 1836 appeared Eyton's History of the rarer British Birds, intended as a sequel to Bewick's well-known volumes, to which no important additions had been made since the issue of 1821. The year 1837 saw the beginning of two remarkable works by MacgiUivray and Yarrell respectively, and each entituled A History of British Birds. Of the first, undoubtedly the more original and in many respects the more minutely accurate, mention will again have to be made, and, save to state that its five volumes were not completed till 1852, nothing more needs now to be added. The second unquestionably became the standard work on British Ornithology, a fact due in part to its numerous illustrations, many of them indeed ill drawn, though all carefully engraved, but much more to the breadth of the author's views and the judgment with which they were set forth. In practical acquaintance with the internal structure of Birds, and in the perception of its importance in classification, he was certainly not behind his rival ; but he well knew that his public in a Book of Birds not only did not want a series of anatomical treatises, but would even resent their introduction. He had the art to conceal his art, and his work was there- fore a success, while the other was unhappily a failure. Yet with all his knowledge he was deficient in some of the qualities which a great naturalist ought to possess. His conception of what his work should be seems to have been perfect, his execution was not equal to the conception. However, he was not the first nor will he be the last to fall short in this respect. For him it must be said that, whatever may have been done by the generation of British ornithologists now becoming advanced in life, he educated them to do it ; nay, his influence even extends to a younger generation still, though they may hardly be aware of it. Of Yarrell' s work in three volumes, a second edition was published in 1845, a third in 1856, and a fourth, begun in 1871, and almost wholly rewritten, was finished in 1885 by Mr. Saunders, who in 1888 and 1889, carrying out the suggestion of a brother ornithologist, skilfully condensed the whole into a single volume, forming a useful Manual of British Birds, illustrated by the same figures as the larger work. Of other compilations based upon it, without which they could not have been composed, there is no need to ••■ A series of MS. notes which he gave to the Cambridge Museum shews that he was largely aided by his brother-in-law Henslow, the botanist. 44- DICTION AR V OF BIRDS speak. 1 One of the few appearing since, with the same scope, that are not borrowed is Jardine's Birds of Great Britain and Ireland (4 vols, 8vo, 1838-43), forming part of his Naturalist's Library ; and Gould's Birds of Great Britain has been already mentioned.^ Two imposing folios, with very good plates by Mr, Keulemans, were issued with the title of Rough Notes on Birds in the British Islands during 1881 to 1887, by the late Mr. Booth (whose " Museum " is one of the popular sights of Brighton),, and contain a great number of personal observations, though few of any novelty or value, while as a record of butchery the work fortunately stands alone. Lord Lilford's Coloured Figures of the Birds of the British Islands, begun in 1885 and now nearly completed, has given great pleasure to many lovers of Birds, by whom such a series of plates was strongly desired, for they are generally good, and some of the latest, by Mr. Thorburn, are exquisite.^ The good effects of "Faunal" works such as those named in the fore- going rapid survey none can doubt, " Every kingdom, every province, should have its own monographer," wrote Gilbert White, and experience has proved the truth of his assertion. It is from the labours of mono- •^ Yet two of them have attained great popularity, and have exerted such an in- fluence in this country, that as a matter of history their authors, both deceased, must here be named, though I would willingly pass them over, for I have not a word to say in favour of either. By every well-informed ornithologist the History of British Birds of Mr, Morris has long been known to possess no authority ; but about Mr. Seebohm's volumes with the same title there is much difference of opinion, some hold- ing them in high esteem. The greater part of their text, when it is correct, will be found on examination to be a paraphrase of what others had already written, for even the information given on the author's personal experience, which was doubtless considerable, extends little or no further. But all this is kept studiously out of sight, and the whole is so skilfully dressed as to make the stalest observations seem novel — a merit, I am assured, in some eyes. Of downright errors and wild conjectures there are enough, and they are confidently asserted with the misuse of language and absence of reasoning power that mark all the author's writings, though the air of scientific treatment assumed throughout has deluded many an unwary reader. "^ Though contravening our plan, we must for its great merits notice here the late Mr. More's series of papers in Tlie Ibis for 1865, "On the Distribution of Birds iu Great Britain during the Nesting Season." ^ Local ornithologies are far too numerous to be named at length. Fortunately Mr, Christy has published a Catalogue of them {Zool. 1890, pp, 247-267, and separately, London: 1891), and only a few of the most remarkable and the most recent need here be mentioned. The first three volumes of Thompson's Natural History of Ireland (1849-51) cannot be passed over, as containing an excellent account, to equal which no approach has since been made, of the Birds of that country, though there are many important papers by later Irish ornithologists, as Messrs, Barrett-Hamilton, Blake-Knox, H, L, Jameson, R, Paterson, Ussher and Warren, and conspicuously by Mr. Barrington. For North Britain, Robert Gray's Birds of the West of Scotland (1871), and the series of district Vertebrate Faunas, begun by Messrs. Harvie-Brown and T. E. Buckley, of which 7 volumes have now appeared — treating of (1) Sutherland, Caithness and West Cromarty, (2) Outer Hebrides, (3) Argyll and Inner Hebrides, (4) lona and Mull (this by Graham), (5) Orkney and (6 and 7) Moray — while others, as Dee and Shetland, are in progress, calls for especial remark, as does Mr. Muirhead's Birds of Berwickshire (2 vols. 1889-96) ; but for want of space many meritorious papers in journals, by Alston, Dalgleish, W.Evans, Lumsden and others must here be unnoticed. The local works on Englisli Birds are still more numerous, but among them may be especially named the oldest of all, Tucker's unfinished Ond- thologia Danmoniensis (4to, 1809), an ambitious work of which not even the whole of INTRODUCTION 45 graphers of this kind, but on a more extended scale, when brought together, that the valuable results follow which inform us as to Geographical Distribution. Important as they are, they do not of themselves con- stitute Ornithology as a science ; and an enquiry, no less wide and far more recondite, still remains — that having for its object the discovery of the natural groups of Birds, and the mutual relations of those groups, which has always been of the deepest interest, and to it we must now recur. But nearly all the authors above named, it will have been seen, trod the same ancient paths, and in the works of scarcely one of them had any new spark of intelligence been struck out to enlighten the gloom which surrounded the investigator. It is now for us to trace the rise of the present more advanced school of ornithologists whose labours, pre- liminary as we must still regard them to be, yet give signs of far greater promise. It would probably be unsafe to place its origin further back than a few scattered hints contained in the ' Pterographische Fragmente ' of Christian Ludwig Nitzsch, published in the Magazin filr den neuesten Zustand der Naturhunde (edited by Voigt) for May 1806 (xi. pp. 393-417), and even these might be left to pass unnoticed, were it not that we recog- nize in them the germ of the great work which the same admirable zoologist subsequently accomplished. In these " Fragments," apparently his earliest productions, we find him engaged on the subject with which his name wUl always be especially identified, the structure and arrange- ment of the feathers that form the proverbial characteristic of Birds. But, though the observations set forth in this essay were sufficiently novel, there is not much in them that at the time would have attracted attention, for perhaps no one — not even the author himself — could have then foreseen to what important end they would, in conjunction with other investigations, lead future naturalists ; but they are marked by the close and patient determination that eminently distinguishes all the work of their author ; and, since it will be necessary for us to return to this the somewhat turgid Introduction was published ; but the two parts printed shew the author to have been a physiologist, anatomist and outdoor-observer far beyond most men of his time, beside being of a philosophical turn, well acquainted with literature, and an agi-eeable ^vriter. At a long interval follow Dillwyn's Fauna and Flora of Svjansea (1848) ; Knox's Ornithological Rambles in Sussex (1849) ; Mr. Harting's Birds of Middlesex (1866) ; Stevenson's Birds of Norfolk (3 vols. 1866-90, completed by Mr. Southwell) ; Cecil Smith's Birds of Somerset (1869) and of Guernsey (1879) ; Mr. Cordeaux's Birds of the Huniber District (1872) ; Hancock's Birds of Northumber- land and Durham (1874) ; The Birds of Nottinghamshire by Messrs. Sterland and Whitaker (1879) ; Rodd's Birds of Oormmll, edited by Mr. Harting (1880) ; the Vertebrate Fauna of Yorkshire (1881), in which the Birds are by Mr. W. E. Clarke ; Churchill Babington's Birds of Suffolk (1884-6) ; and Mr. A. C. Smith's Birds of Wiltshire (1887). Since the publication of Mr. Christy's Catalogue a few more have to be briefly mentioned, and first his own volume on the Birds of Essex (1890), while those of Sussex were treated in 1891 by Mr. Borrer ; Worcestershire (1891) by Mr. Willis Bund; Devonshire (1891) by Mr. Pidsley and (1892) by Messrs. D'Urban and Mathew (Suppl. and'ed. 2, 1895); Lakeland (1892) by Mr. H. A. Macpherson ; Lancashire (ed. 2, 1893) by Mr. F. S. Mitchell ; London (1893) by Mr. Swann ; Derbyshire (1893) by Mr. Whitlock, and finally Northamptonshire (2 vols. 1895) by Lord Lilford. The papers in journals are countless, but almost all up to the time of compilation are contained in the excellent List of Faunal Publications relating to British Birds, published in 1880 by Dr. Coues {Proc. V. S. Nat. Mus. ii. pp. 359-482). DICTION AR V OF BIRDS part of the subject later, there is here no need to say more of tliem. In the following year another set of hints — of a kind so different that probably no one then living would have thought it possible that they should ever be brought in correlation with those of Nitzsch — are con- tained in a memoir on Fishes contributed to the tenth volume of the Annales du Museum d'histoire naturelle of Paris by Etienne Geoff roy St.- Hilaire in 1807.^ Here we have it stated as a general truth (p. 100) that young birds have the sternum formed of five separate pieces — one in the middle, being its keel, and two " annexes " on each side to which the ribs are articulated — all, however, finally uniting to form the single "breast-bone." Further on (pp. 101, 102) we find observations as to the number of ribs which are attached to each of the " annexes " — there being sometimes more of them articulated to the anterior than to the posterior, and in certain forms no ribs belonging to one, all being applied to the other. Moreover, the author goes on to remark that in adult birds trace of the origin of the sternum from five centres of ossification is always more or less indicated by sutures, and that, though these sutures had been generally regarded as ridges for the attachment of the sternal muscles, they indeed mark the extreme points of the five primary bony pieces of the sternum. In 1810 appeared at Heidelberg the first volume of Tiedemann's carefully-wrought Anatomie und Naturgeschichte der Vogel — which shews a remarkable advance upon the work which Cuvier did in 1805, and in some respects is superior to his later production of 1817. It is, however, only noticed here on account of the numerous references made to it by succeeding writers, for neither in this nor in the author's second volume (not published until 1814) did he propound any systematic arrangement of the Class. More germaiie to our present subject are the OsteograpMsche Beitrdge zur Naturgeschichte der Vogel of Nitzsch, printed at Leipzig in 1811 — a miscellaneous set of detached essays on some peculiarities of the skeleton or portions of the skeleton of certain Birds — one of the most remarkable of which is that on the component parts of the foot (pp. 101-105) pointing out the aberration from the ordinary structure exhibited by Gaprimulgus (Nightjar) and Gypselus (Swift) — an aberration which, if rightly understood, would have conveyed a warning to these orni- thological systematists who put their trust in Birds' toes for characters on which to erect a classification, that there was in them much more of importance, hidden beneath the integument, than had hitherto been suspected ; but the warning was of little avail, if any, till many years had elapsed. However, Nitzsch had not as yet seen his way to proposing any methodical arrangement of the various groups of Birds, and it was not until some eighteen months later that a scheme of classification in the main anatomical was attempted. This scheme was the work of Blasius Merrem, who, in a communica- tion to the Academy of Sciences of Berlin on the 10th December 1812, and published in its Ahhandlungen for the following year (pp. 237-259), ^ In the .Philosophic Anatomiquc (i. pp. 69-101, and especially ])p. ISf), 136), which appeared in 1818, Geoffroy St. -Hihiire explained the views lie had adopted at greater length. INTRODUCTION 47 set forth a Tentamen Systematis naturalis Avium, no less' modestly entitled than modestly executed. The attempt of Merrera must be regarded as the virtual starting-point of the more recent efforts in Systematic Ornithology, and in that view its proposals deserve to be stated at length. Some of its details, as is Onl}'- natural, cannot be sustained vs'ith our present knowledge, resulting from the information accumulated by various investigators through- out more than eighty years ; but it is certainly not too much to say that Merrem's merits are incomparably superior to those of any of his pre- decessors as well as to those of the majority of his successors for a long time to come ; while the neglect of his treatise by many (until of late it would not be erroneous to say by most) of those who have since written on the subject seems inexcusable save on the score of inadvertence. Premising then that the chief characters assigned by this ill-appreciated systematist to his several groups are drawn from almost all parts of the structure of Birds, and are supplemented by some others of their more prominent peculiarities, we present the following abstract of his scheme : ^ — I. AVES CARINAT^. 1. Aves aereffi. A. Rapaces. — a. Accipitres — VuUur, Falco, Sagittarius. b. Strix. B. Hymenopocles. — a. Clielidones : a. C. nocturnee — Caprimulgus. /3. C. diurnse — Hirundo. b. Oscines : a. 0. conirostres — Loxia, Fringilla, Einberiza, Tan- gara. ^. 0. tenuirostres — Alauda, Motacilla, Muscicapa, Todus, Lanius, Ampelis, Turdus, Paradisea, Buphaga, Sturnus, Oriolus, Gracula, Coracias, Corvus, Pipra ?, Parus, Sitta, Certhise quaedam. C. Mellisugse. — Trochilus, Certhiw et Upupw plurimse. D. Dendrocolaptse. — Picus, Yunx. E. Brevilingues. — a. TJpupa ; h. Ispidse. F. Levirostres. — a. PMinphastus, Scythropsi; h. Psittacus. G. Coccyges. — Cuculus, Trogon, Bucco, Crotophaga, 2. Aves terrestres. A. Columba. B. Gallinse. 3. Aves aquaticae. A. Odontorhynchi : a. Boscades — Anas ; h. Mergus ; c. Phoenicopterus. B. Platyrhynchi. — Pelicanus, Plmeton, Plotus. C. Aptenodytes. D. Urinatrices : a. Cepphi — Alcu, Colymbi pedibus palmatis ; h. Podiceps, Colymhi pedibus lobatis. E. Stenorhynchi. — Procellaria, Diomedea, Larus, Sterna, Rhynchops. 4. Aves palustres. A. Rnsticolas : a. Phalarides — Rallus, Fulica, Parra ; h. Limosugse — Numenius, Scoloptao:, Tringa, Charadrixis, Recitrmrostra. B. Grallffi : a. Erodii — Ardew uague intermedio serrato, Cancroma ; h. Pelargi • — Ciconia, Mycteria, Tantali quidam, Scopus, Platalea ; c. Geraiii — Ardese eristatse, Grues, Psopliia. C. Otis. II. Aves hatit.e. — Struthio. ■'■ The names of the genera are, he tells lis, for the most part those of Linnseus, as being the best-known, though not the best. To some of the Linneean genera he DICTIONAR V OF BIRDS Tlie most novel feature, and one the importance of wliich. most ornitliologists of tlie present day are fully prepared to admit, is of course tlie separation of the Class Aves into two great Divisions, which from one of the most obvious distinctions they present were called by its author Carinatse ^ and Ratitge,^ according as the sternum possesses a keel or not. But Merrem, who subsequently communicated to the Academy of Berlin a more detailed memoir on the " flat-breasted " Birds,^ was careful not here to rest his Divisions on the presence or absence of their sternal character alone. He concisely cites (p. 238) no fewer than eight other characters of more or less value as peculiar to the Carinate Division, the first of which is that the feathers have their barbs furnished with hooks, in consequence of which the barbs, including those of the wing- quills, cling closely together ; while among the rest may be mentioned the l^osition of the furcula and coracoids,'^ which keep the wing-bones apart ; the limitation of the number of the lumbar vertebrte to fifteen, and of the carpals to two ; as well as the divergent direction of the iliac bones, — the corresponding characters peculiar to the Ratite Division being (p. 259) the disconnected condition of the barbs of the feathers, through the absence of any hooks whereby they might cohere ; the non-existence of the furcula, and the coalescence of the coracoids with the scapulae (or, as he expressed it, the extension of the scapulae, to supply the place of the coracoids, which he thought were wanting) ; the lumbar vertebrae being twenty and the carpals three in number ; and the parallelism of the iliac bones. 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 shewn by Nitzsch (as above mentioned) to exist, between the Swallows and the Swifts ; and, by putting the genus Coracias among his Oscines Tenuirostrcs ^ 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 s|)ecies hitherto referred to the genera Certhia and TJfU'pa required removal to other positions, and it is much to dare not, however, assign a place, for instance, Buceros, Masmatopws, Alerops, Glarcola (Brisson's genus, by the way) and Palamedea. 1 From carina, a keel. - From ratis, a raft or flat-bottomed barge. ^ " Beschreibuug der Gerippes eiues Casuars nebst einigeu beilaufigen Bemer- kungen liber die flachbriistigen. Vogel." — Abhandl. der Berlin. Akademie, Phijs. Klassc, 1817, pp. 179-198, tabb. i.-iii. ^ Merrem, as did many others in his time, calls the CORACOIDS "claviculw" ; but it is now well understood that in Birds tlie real davicidm form the FURCULA. " He also placed the genus Todus 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 certainly do not belong to it, and it may well have been that he never had the opportunity of e-xamining a specimen of the genus as nowadays restricted. INTRODUCTION 4g be regretted that tbe very concise terms in whicli 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 rejjutation 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 ajsparently 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 Families among Birds, which was read by De Blainville before the Academy of Sciences of Paris in 1815,1 but not published in full for more than five years later {Journ. de Physique, xcii. pp. 185-215), though an abstract forming part of a Prodrome dhme nouvelle distribution du Eegne Animal, appeared earlier {op. cit. Ixxxiii. pp. 252, 253, 258, 259 ; and Bull. Soc. Philomat. 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 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, though he states the contrary, were those drawn from its posterior margin, which no very extensive experience of specimens is needed to shew are of comparatively slight value ; for the number of '' echancrures" — notches as they have sometimes been called in English — when 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 misleading.^ There is no appearance of his having 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 ^ and the Pigeons as " Ordres," equal in rank to that of the Birds-of-Prey and some others. According to the testimony of UHerminier (for whom see later) he divided the " Passereaux " into two sections, the "faux " and the " vrais " ; but, while the latter were very correctly defined, the former Avere most arbitrarily separated from the " Grimpeurs." He also split his Grallatores and Naiatores (practically identical with the Grallx 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 " Ordres." He had, however, the courage to act up to his own professions in collocating the Rollers ^ Not 1812, as has sometimes been stated, probably on his own authority [loc. cit. p. 110), but this seems to be a misprint for 1815. ' Cf. Philos. Trans. 1869, p. 337, note. ^ This view had been long before taken by Willughby, but abandoned by later authors. JO DICTIONAR V OF BIRDS (Coracias) with the Bee-eaters {Merops), and had the sagacity to surmise that Menura was not a Gallinaceous Bird. The greatest benefit conferred by this memoir probably is that it stimulated the ettorts, presently to be mentioned, of one of his pupils, and that it brought more distinctly into sight that other feature (page Jf.8), originally discovered by Merrem, of which it now clearly became the duty of systematizers to take cognizance. Following the order of time we next have to recur to the labours of Nitzsch, who, in 1820, in a treatise on the Nasal Glands of Birds — a subject that had already attracted the attention of Jacobson (Nouv. Bull. Soc. Philomat. Paris, iii. pp. 267-269) — first putfortli in Meckel's Beuisches Archiv fiir die Physiologic (vi. pp. 251-269) a statement of his general views on ornithological classification which were 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,i 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 was, 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 Picariee) 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 forming a base of operations, in drawing up a system, it would almost follow that there can be no part of a Bird's organization that by proper study would not help to supply some means of solving the great question of its affinities. This seems to be one of the most certain general truths in Zoology, and it 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 gener- ally taking a separate set, and that to the exclusion of all others, instead of eftecting 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 observations which he must have been for some time accumulating, and almost immediately afterwards began to contribute to the younger Naumann's excellent Naturgeschichte der Vogel Deutschlands, already noticed. Beside a concise general treatise on the Organization of Birds to be found in the introduction to that work (i. pp. - This plan, having been repeated by Schopss in 1829 (ojj. cU. xii. p. 73), became known to Owen in 1835, who then drew to it the attention of Kirby {Seventh Bridgc- wOjter Treatise, ii. pp. 444, 445), and in the next year referred to it in his own article " Aves " (Todd's Cyclop. Anat. i. p. 226), 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 cited by Owen. ^ A remarkable instance of this may be seen in the Systema Avium, promulgated in 1830 by Wagler (a man with great knowledge of Birds) in his JVatiirlickes System der Amiohibien {]}]). 77-128). He took the tongue as his chief guide, and found it indeed an unruly member. \ INTRODUCTION j/ 23-52), a brief description from Nitzscli's pen of the peculiarities of the internal structure of nearly every genus is incorporated with the author's prefatory remarks, as each passed under consideration, and these de- scriptions being almost without exceiJtion so drawn up as to be com- jiarative are accordingly of great utility to the student of classification, though they have been greatly neglected. Upon these descriptions he was still engaged till death, in 1837, put an end to his labours, when his place as Naumann's assistant for the remainder of the work was taken by Rudolph Wagner ; but, from time to time, a few more, which he had already completed, made their posthumous appearance in it, and, even in recent years, some selections from his unpublished papers have through the care of Giebel been presented to the public. Throughout the whole of this series the same marvellous industry and scrupulous accuracy are manifested, and attentive study of it will shew how many times Nitzsch anticipated the conclusions at which it took some modern taxonomers fifty years to arrive. Yet over and over again his determination of the afiinities of several groups even of European Birds was disregarded ; and his labours, being contained in a bulky and costly work, were hardly known at all outside of his own country, and within it by no means ajjpreciated so much as they deserved ^ — for even Naumann himself, who gave them publication, and was doubtless in some degree influenced by them, utterly failed to perceive the importance of the characters oflfered by the song-muscles of certain groups, though their peculiarities were all duly described and recorded by his coadjutor, as some indeed had been long before by Cuvier in his famous dissertation ^ on the organs of voice in Birds {Legons d'anat. comp. iv. pp. 450-491). Nitzsch's name was subsec^uently dismissed by Cuvier without a word of praise, and in terms which would have been applicable to many another and inferior author, while Temminck, terming Naumann's work an " ouvrage de luxe," — it being in truth one of the cheapest for its contents ever published, — eff'ectually shut it out from the realms of science. In Britain it seems to have been positively unknown until quoted some years after its completion by a catalogue-compiler on account of some peculiarities of nomenclature which it presented.^ Now we must return to France, where, in 1827, L'Herminier, a Creole of Guadeloupe and a pupil of De Blainville's, contributed to the Ades of the Linnaean Society of Paris for that year (vi. pp. 3-93) the 'Eecherches sur I'appareil sternal des Oiseaux/ which the precej)t and example of his master had prompted him to undertake, and Cuvier had found for him the means of executing. A second and considerably enlarged edition of this very remarkable treatise was published as a separate work in the following year. We have already seen that De Blainville, though fully persuaded of the great value of sternal features as a method of classification, had been compelled to fall back upon the old pedal characters so often •^ Their value was, however, understood by Gloger, who in 1834, as will presently be seen, expressed his regret at not being able to use them. ^ Cuvier's first observations on the subject seem to have appeared in the Magazin £ncyclo2}edique for 1795 (ii. pp. 330, 358). ^ However, to this catalogue-compiler my gratitude is due, for thereby I became acquainted with the work and its merits. 52 DICTIONAR V OF BIRDS emploj-ed before ; but now the scholar had learnt to excel his teacher, and not only to form an at least provisional arrangement of the various members of the Class, based on sternal characters, but to describe these characters at some length, and so give a reason for the faith that was in him. There is no evidence, so far as we can see, of his having been aware of Merrem's views ; but like that anatomist he without hesitation divided the Class into two great " coupes,''' to which he gave, however, no other names than " Oiseaux Normaux " and " Oiseaiix Anomaux," — exactly corresponding with his predecessor's Garinatse, and Eatitee — and, moreover, he had a great advantage in founding these groups, since he had discovered, apparently from his own investigations, that the mode of ossification in each was distinct ; for hitherto the statement of there being five centres of ossification in every Bird's sternum seems to have been accepted as a general truth, without contradiction, whereas in the Ostrich and the Ehea, at any rate, L'Herminier found that there were but two such primitive points,^ and from analogy he judged that the same would be the case with the Cassowary and the Emeu, which, with the two forms mentioned above, made up the whole of the " Oiseaux Anomaux " whose existence was then generally acknowledged.^ These are the forms which composed the Family previously termed Cursores by De Blainville ; but L'Herminier was able to distinguish no fewer than thirtj^-four Families of " Oiseaux Normaux" and the judgment with which their separation and definition were effected must be deemed on the whole to be most creditable to him. It is to be remarked, however, that the wealth of the Paris Museum, which he enjoyed to the full, placed him in a situation incomparably more favourable for arriving at results than that which was occupied by Merrem, to whom many of the most remarkable forms were inaccessible, while L'Herminier had at his disposal examples of nearly every type then discovered. But the latter used this privilege wisely and well — not, after the manner of De Blainville and others subsequent to him, relying solely or even chiefly on the character afforded by the posterior portion of the sternum, but taking also into consideration those of the anterior, as well as of the in some cases still more important characters presented by the presternal bones, such as the furcula, coracoids and scapulae. L'Herminier thus separated the families of " Normal Birds " : — Accipitres, Linu. — Gypogeranus, " Accipitres "- " Serpentaires ' Illiger. " Cliouettes " — Strix, Linn. " Touracos " — Ojmetus, Vieillot. " Perroquets " — Psittacus, Linu. "Colibris" — Trochilus, Linn. " Martinets " — Cypselus, Illiger. " Engoulevents " — Caprimulgus, Linu. "Coiicoiis" — Cuculus, Linn. 10. " Couroueous " — Trogon, Linu. 11. "EoUiers" — Galgulus, Brissou. 12. "Guepiers" — Merops, Linn. 13. " Martins-Pecheurs " — Alcedo, Linn. 14." "Calaos" — Bicceros, Linu. 15. "Toucans" — Ramphastos, Linn. 16. "Pies" — PiCM5, Linn. 17. " ^^popsides " — Epopsides, Vieillot. 18. "Passereaux" — Passeres, Linn. 19. "Pigeons" — Golumba, Linn. 20. " Galliuaces " — GaUinacca. •'■ This fact in the Ostricli appears to have been knowu already to Geoll'roy St.- Hilaire from his own observation in Egypt, but does not seem to have been published by him. ^ Considerable doubts were at that time, as said elsewhere (Kiwi), entertained iu Paris as to the existence of the Aplcnjx. INTRODUCTION S3 21. " Tinamous " — Tiiiamus, Latham. 27. 22. "Foulques qm Poules d'eau " — 28. Fulica, Linn, 29. 23. "Grnes" — Gi-us, Pallas. 30. 24. " Herodions " — Herodii, Illiger. 31. 25. No name given, bnt said to include 32. "les ibis et les spatules." 33. 26. '•Gralles ou lilchassiers " — Grallie. 34. " Mouettes " — Larus, Linn. " Petrels " — Procdlaria, Linn. " Pelicans " — Pelecanus, Linn. " Canards " — Anas, Linn. " Grebes " — Podiceps, Latham. " Plongeons " — Colymh^is, Latham.. "Pingonins" — Alca, Latham. " Manchots " — Aptenodytes, Forster. The preceding list is given to shew the very marked agreement of L'Herminier's results compared with those obtained fifty years later by another investigator, who approached the subject from an entirely different, though still osteological, basis. The sequence of the Families adopted is of course ojoen to much criticism ; but that would be wasted upon it at the jDresent day ; and the cautious naturalist will remember that it is generally difficult and in most cases absolutely impossible to deploy even a small section of the Animal Kingdom into line. So far as a linear arrangement will permit, the above list is very creditable, and will not only pass miister, but cannot easily be surpassed for convenience even at this moment. Experience has shewn that a few of the Families are composite, and therefore require further splitting ; but examples of actually false group- ing cannot be said to occur. The most serious fault perhaps to be found is the intercalation of the Ducks (No. 30) between the Pelicans and the Grebes — but every systematist must recognize the difficulty there is in finding a place for the Ducks in any arrangement we can at present con- trive that shall be regarded as satisfactory. Many of the excellences of L'Herminier's method could not be pointed out without too great a sacrifice of space, because of the details into which it would be necessary to enter ; but the trenchant way in which he shewed that the " Passereaux " — a group of which. Cuvier had said " Son caractere semble d'abord purement n^gatif," and had failed to define the limits — differed so completely from every other assemblage, while maintaining among its own innumerable members an almost perfect essential homogeneity, is very striking, and shews how admirably he could grasp his subject. Not less conspicuous are his merits in disjDOsing of the groups of what are ordinarily known as Water-birds, his indicating the affinity of the Eails (No. 22) to the Cranes (No. 23), and the severing of the latter from the Herons (No. 24). His union of the Snipes, Sandpipers and Plovers into one group (No. 26) and the alliance, especially dwelt upon, of that group with the Gulls (No. 27) are steps which, though indicated by Merrem, are here for the first time clearly laid down ; and the separation of the Gulls from the Petrels (No. 28) — a step in advance already taken, it is true, by Illiger — is here placed on indefeasible ground. With all this, perhaps on account of all this, L'Herminier's efforts did not find favour with his scientific superiors, and for the time things remained as though his investi- gations had never been carried on.^ Two years later Nitzsch, who was indefatigable in his endeavour to ^ With the exception of a brief and wholly inadequate notice in the Edinburgh Journal of Natural History (i. p. 90), I am not aware of attention having been directed to L'Herminier's labours by British ornithologists for several years after ; but con- sidering how they were employing themselves at the time (as is shewn in another place) this is not surprising. S4 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS discover the Natural Families of Birds, and had been pursuing a series of researches into their vascular system, published the result, at Halle in Saxony, in his Observationes cle Avium arteria carotide communi, in which is included a classification drawn up in accordance with the varia- tion of structure which that important vessel presented in the several groups that he had opportunities of examining. By this time he had visited several of the principal museums on the Continent, among others Leyden (where Temminck lived) and Paris (where he had frequent inter- course with Cuvier), thus becoming acquainted with a considerable number of exotic forms that had hitherto been inaccessible to him. Consequently his labours had attained to a certain degree of completeness in this direc- tion, and it may therefore be expedient here to name the different groups which he thus thought himself entitled to consider established. They are as follows : — I. AVES CAEiNATiE [L'H. " Oiseaux Normaux "]. A. Aves Cariuatse aerese. 1. Accipitrinw [VH.. 1, 2 partim, 3] ; 2. Passerinie [L'H. 18] ; 3. Macrochires\\j'll. 6, 7] ; 4. CumliniB [L'H. 8, 9, 10 (qu. 11, 12 ?)] ; 5. Picinse [L'H. 15, 16] ; 6. Fsittdcinw [L'H. 5] ; 7. Lipogloss^ [L'H. 13, 14, 17] ; 8. Amphiboly [L'H. 4], B. Aves Carinatse terrestres. 1. Golumlinse [L'H. 19] ; 2. Gallinacew [L'H. 20]. C. Aves Carinatse aquaticee. Grallae. 1. AUctorid.es {= Dicholophus + Otis) [L'H. 2 partim, 26 partim] ; 2. Cfruinse [L'H. 23] ; 3. FulicariiB [L'H. 22] ; 4. Herodiie [L'H. 24 partim] ; 5. Pelargi [L'H. 24 partim, 25]; 6. Odontoglossi [= Phoenicopterus) [L'H. 26 partim]; 7. Limicolie [L'H. 26 paene omnes]. Palmatffi. 8. Longipennes [L'H. 27] ; 9. Nasutas [L'H. 28] ; 10. Vnguirostres [L'H. 30] ; 11. Steganopodes [L'H. 29] ; 12. Pygopodes [L'H. 31, 32, 33, 34]. II. Aves Ratit^ [L'H. "Oiseaux Anomaux"]. To enable the reader to compare the several groups of Nitzsch with the Families of L'Herminier, the numbers applied by the latter to his Families are suffixed in square brackets to the names of the former ; and, disregarding the order of sequence, which is here immaterial, the essential correspondence of the two systems is worthy of all attention, for it obviously means that these two investigators, starting from different points, must have been on the right track, when they so often coincided as to the limits of what they considered to be, and what we are now almost justified in calling. Natural Groups.^ But it must be observed that the classifica- tion of Nitzsch, just given, rests much more on characters furnished by ^ Whether Nitzsch was cognizant of L'Herminier's views is in no way apparent. Tlie latter's name seems not to be even mentioned by him, but Nitzsch was in Paris in the summer of 1827, and it is almost impossible that he should not have heard of L'Herminier's labours, unless the relations between the followers of Cuvier, to whom Nitzsch attached himself, and those of De Blainville, whose pupil L'Herminier was, were such as to forbid any communication between the rival schools. Yet we have L'Herminier's evidence that Cuvier gave him every assistance. Nitzsch's silence, both on this occasion and afterwards, is very curious ; but he cannot be accused of plagiarism, for the scheme given above is only au amplification of that foreshadowed by him (as already mentioned) in 1820— a scheme which seems to have beeueqxially unknown to L'Herminier, perhaps through linguistic dilliculty. INTR ODUC TION js the general structure than those furnished by the carotid artery only. Among all the species (188, he tells us, in number) of which he examined specimens, he found only fottr variations in the structure of that vessel ; but so much has since been done in this way that there is no need to dwell on his particular researches, and the reader may be referred to Dr. Gadow's article in the text of this work (pp. 76, 77). Considering the enormous stride in advance made by L'Herminier, it is very disappointing for the historian to have to record that the next inquirer into the osteology of Birds achieved a disastrous failure in his attempt to throw light on their arrangement by means of a comparison of their sternum. This was Berthold, who devoted a long chapter of his JBeitrage zur Anatomie, published at Gottingen in 1831, to a consideration of the subject. So far as his introductory chapter went — the development of the sternum — he was, for his time, right enough and somewhat instructive. It was only when, after a close examination of the sternal apparatus of 130 species, which he carefully described, that he arrived (pp. 177-183) at the conclusion — astonishing to us who know of L'Her- minier's previous results — that the sternum of Birds cannot be used as a help to their classification on account of the egregious anomalies that would follow the proceeding — such, anomalies, for instance, as the separation of Gypselus from Hirundo and its alliance with. Trochilus, and the grouping of Hirundo and Fringilla together. He seems to have been persuaded that the method of Linnaeus and his disciples was indisputably right, and that any method which contradicted it must therefore be wrong. Moreover, he appears to have regarded the sternal structure as a mere function of the Bird's habit, especially in regard to its power of flight, and to have wholly overlooked the converse position that this power of flight must depend entirely on the structure. Good descriptive anatomist as he certainly was, he was false to the anatomist's creed ; but it is plain, from reading his careful descriptions of sternums, that he could not grasp the essential characters he had before him, and, attracted only by the more salient and obvious features, had not capacity to interpret the meaning of the whole. Yet he did not amiss by giving many figures of sternums hitherto unrepresented. We pass from him to a more lively theme. At the very beginning of the year 1832 Cuvier laid before the Academy of Sciences of Paris a memoir on the progress of ossification in the sternum of Birds, of which memoir an abstract will be found in the Annates des Sciences Naturelles (xxv. pp. 260-272). Herein he treated of several subjects with which we are not particularly concerned at present, and his remarks throughout were chiefly directed against certain theories which Etienne Geoftroy St.-Hilaire had propounded in his Philosophie Anatomicpie, published a good many years before, and need not trouble us here ; but what does signify to us now is that Cuvier traced in detail, illustrating his statements by the preparations he exhibited, the progress of ossification in the sternum of the Fowl and of the Duck, pointing out how it differed in each, and giving his inter- pretation of the differences. It had hitherto been generally believed that the mode of ossification in the Fowl was that which obtained in all jd DICTIONARY OF BIRDS Birds — the Ostrich and its allies (as L'Herminier, we have seen, had already shewn) excepted. But it was now made to appear that the Struthious Birds in this respect resembled not only the Duck, hut a great many other groups — Waders, Birds-of-Prey, Pigeons, Passerines and perhaps all Birds not Gallinaceous, — so that, according to Cuvier's view, the five points of ossification observed in the Gallinse,, instead of exhibiting the normal process, exhibited one quite exceptional, and that in all other Birds, so far as he had been enabled to investigate the matter, ossification of the sternum began at two points only, situated near the anterior upper margin of the side of the sternum, and gradu- ally crept towards the keel, into which it presently extended ; and, though he allowed the appearance of detached portions of calcareous matter at the base of the still cartilaginous keel in Ducks at a certain age, he seemed to consider this an individual peculiarity. This fact was fastened upon by Geoffroy in his reply, which was a week later pre- sented to the Academy, but was not published in full until the following year, when it appeared in the Annales du Museum (ser. 3, ii. pp. 1-22). Geofi'roy here maintained that the five centres of ossification existed in the Duck~ just as in the Fowl, and that the real difference of the process lay in the period at which they made their appearance, a cir- cumstance, which, though virtually proved by the preparations Cuvier had used, had been by him overlooked or misinterpreted. The Fowl possesses all five ossifications at birth, and for a long while the middle piece forming the keel is by far the largest. They all grow slowly, and it is not until the animal is about six months old that they are united into one firm bone. The Duck on the other hand, when newly hatched, and for nearly a month after, has the sternum wholly cartilaginous. Then, it is true, two lateral points of ossification appear at the margin, but subsequently the remaining three are developed, and when once formed they grow with much greater rapidity than in the Fowl, so that by the time the yoang Duck is quite independent of its parents, and can shift for itself, the whole sternum is completely bony. Nor, argued Geoffroy, was it true to say, as Cuvier had said, that the like occurred in the Pigeons and true Passerines. In their case the sternum begins to ossify from three very distinct points — one of which is the centre of ossification of the keel. As regards the Struthious Birds, they could not be likened to the Duck, for in them at no age was there any indication of a single median centre of ossification, as Geoffroy had satisfied himself by his own observations made in Egypt many years before. Cuvier seems to have acquiesced in the corrections of his views made by Geoffroy, and attempted no rejoinder ; but the attentive and impartial student of the discussion will see that a good deal w^as really wanting to make the latter's reply effective, though, as events have shewn, the former was hasty in the conclusions at which he arrived, having trusted too much to the first appearance of centres of ossification, for, had his observations in regard to other Birds been carried on with the same attention to detail as in regard to the Fowl, he would cer- tainly have reached some very different results. In 1834 Gloger brought out at Breslau the first (and unfortunately INTRODUCTION S7 the only) part of a VoUstcindiges Handbuch der Naturgeschichte der Vogel Europa's, treating of the Land-birds. In the Introduction to this book (p. xxxviii. note) he expressed his regret at not being able to use as fully as he could wish the excellent researches of Nitzsch which were then appearing (as has been above said) in the successive parts of Nau- mann's great work. Notwithstanding this, to Gloger seems to belong the credit of being the first author to avail himself, in a book intended for practical ornithologists, of the new light that had already been shed on Systematic Ornithology ; and accordingly we have the second Order of his arrangement, the Aves Passerinse, divided into two Suborders : — Singing Passerines (melodusse), and Passerines without an apparatus of Song-muscles (anomalse) — the latter including what some later writers called Picariee. For the rest his classification demands no particular remark ; but that in a work of this kind he had the courage to recognize, for instance, stich a fact as the essential diff'erence between Swallows and Swifts, lifts him considerably above the crowd of other ornithological writers of his time. An improvement on the old method of classification by purely external characters was introduced to the Academy of Sciences of Stock- holm by Sundevall in 1835, and was published the following year in its Handlingar (pp. 43-130). This was the foundation of a more extensive work of which, from the influence it still exerts, it will be necessary to treat later, and there will be no need now to enter much into details respecting the earlier performance. It is sufficient here to remark that the author, even then a man of great erudition, must have been aware of the turn which taxonomy was taking ; but, not being able to divest himself of the older notion that external characters were superior to those furnished by the study of internal structure, and that Comparative Anatomy, instead of being a part of Zoology, was some- thing distinct from it, he seems to have endeavoured to form a scheme which, while not running wholly counter to the teachings of Com- parative Anatomists, should yet rest ostensibly on external characters. With this view he studied the latter most laboriously, and certainly not without success, for he brought into prominence several points that had hitherto escaped the notice of his predecessors. He also admitted among his characteristics a physiological consideration (apparently derived from Oken ^) dividing the class Aves into two sections AUrices and Prsecoces, according as the young were fed by their parents, or, from the first, fed themselves. P>ut at this time he was encumbered with the hazy doctrine of analogies, which, if it did not act to his detriment, was assuredly of no service to him. He prefixed an ' Idea Systematis ' to his ' Expositio ' ; and the former, which appears to represent his real opinion, difl:ers in arrangement very considerably from the latter. Like Gloger, Sundevall in his ideal system separated the true Passerines from all other Birds, calling them Volucres ; but he took a step further, for he assigned to them the highest rank, wherein nearly every recent ^ He says from Oken's Naturgeschichte fur Schulen, pulolished in 1821, but the division is to be found in that author's earlier Lehrbuch der Zoologie (ii. p. 371), which appeared in 1816. S8 DICTIONAR V OF BIRDS authority agrees with him ; out of them, however, he chose the Thrushes and Warblers to stand first as his ideal " Centrum " — a selection which, though in the opinion of the present writer erroneous, is still widely followed. The points at issue between Cuvier and Etienne Geoffroy St- Hilaire before mentioned naturally attracted the attention of L'Her- minier, who in 1836 presented to the French Academy the results of his researches into the mode of growth of that bone which in the adult Bird he had already studied to such good purpose. Unfortunately the full account of his diligent investigations was never published. We can only judge of his labours from an abstract {Comjytes Benchis, iii. pp. 12-20, and Ann. Sci. Nat. ser. 2, vi. pp. 107-115), and from the report upon them by Isidore Geoffroy St.-Hilaire {Gom]3tes Bendus, iv. pp. 565-574), to whom with others they were referred, and which is very critical in its character. It were useless to conjecture why the whole memoir never appeared, as the reporter recommended that it should ; but, whether, as he suggested, the author's observations failed to establish the theories he advanced or not, the loss of his observations in an extended form is greatly to be regretted, for no one seems to have continued the investi- gations he began and to some extent carried out ; while, from his resi- dence in Guadeloupe, he had peculiar advantages in studying certain types of Birds not generally available, his remarks on them could not fail to be valuable, quite irrespective of the interpretation he was led to put upon them. L'Herminier arrived at the conclusion that, so far from there being only two or three different modes by which the jDrocess of ossification in the sternum is carried out, the number of different modes is very considerable — almost each natural group of Birds having its own. The principal theory which he hence conceived himself justified in propounding was that instead of five being (as had been stated) the maximum number of centres of ossification in the sternum, there are no fewer than nine entering into the composition of the perfect sternum of Birds in general, though in every species some of these nine are wanting, whatever be the condition of development at the time of examination. These nine theoretical centres or "pieces" L'Herminier deemed to be disposed in three transverse ranks (range'es), namely the anterior or " prosternal," the middle or " mesosternal," and the posterior " metasternal " — each rank consisting of three portions, one median piece and two side-pieces. At the same time he seems, according to the abstract of his memoir, to have made the somewhat contradictory asser- tion that sometimes there are more than three pieces in each rank, and in certain groups of Birds as manj^ as six.^ 1 We shall perhaps be justified in assiaming that this apparent inconsistency, and others which present themselves, would be explicable if the whole meraoh- with the necessary illustrations had been published. It would occupy more space than can here be allowed to give even the briefest abstract of the numerous observations which follow the statement of his theory and on which it professedly rests. They extend to more than a score of natural groups of Birds, and nearly each of them presents some peculiar characters. Thus of the first rank of pieces he saj's that when all exist they may be developed simultaneously, or that the two side-pieces may precede the median, or again that the median may precede the side-pieces — according to the INTRODUCTION jg Hitherto it will have been seen that our present business has lain wholly in Germany and France, for, as is elsewhere explained, the chief ornithologists of Britain were occup}dng themselves at this time in a very useless way — not but that there were several distinguished men in this country who were paying due heed at this time to the internal structure of Birds, and some excellent descriptive memoirs on special forms had appeared from their pens, to say nothing of more than one general treatise on ornithic anatomy.^ Yet no one in Britain seems to have attempted to found any scientific arrangement of Birds on other than external characters until, in 1837, William Macgillivray issued the first volume of his History of British Birds, wherein, though professing (p. 19) "not to add a new system to the many already in partial use, or that have passed away like their authors," he propounded (pp. 16-18) a scheme for classifying the Birds of Europe at least founded on a " con- sideration of the digestive organs, which merit special attention, on account, not so much of their great importance in the economy of birds, as the nervous, vascular and other systems are not behind them in this respect ; but because, exhibiting great diversity of form and structure, in accordance with the nature of the food, they are more obviously qualified to afford a basis for the classification of the numerous species of birds" (p. 52). Experience has again and again exposed the fallacy of this last conclusion, but it is no disparagement of its author to say, group of Birds, but that the second mode is much the commonest. The same variations are observable in the second or middle rank, but its side-pieces are said to exist in all groups of Birds without exceiDtion. As to the third or posterior rank, when it is complete the three constituent pieces are developed almost simul- taneously ; but its median piece is said often to originate in two, which soon uuite, especially when the side-pieces are wanting. By way of examples of L'Herminier's observations, what he says of the two groups that had been the subject of Cuvier's and the elder Geoffroy's contest may be mentioned. In the Gallinm the five well- known pieces or centres of ossification are said to consist of the two side-pieces of the second or middle rank, and the three of the posterior. On two occasions, how- ever, there was found in addition, what may be taken for a representation of the first series, a little "noyau" situated between the coracoids — forming the only instance of all three ranks being present in the same Bird. As regards the Ducks, L'Herminier agreed with Cuvier that there are commonly only two centres of ossification — the side-pieces of the middle rank ; but as these grow to meet one another a distinct median "noyau" also of the same rank, sometimes appears, which soon forms a connexion with each of them. In the Ostrich and its allies no trace of this median centre of ossification ever occurs ; but its existence seems to be invariable in all other Birds. ^ Owen's celebrated article 'Aves,' in Todd's Cyclopsedia of Anatomy and Physiology (i. pp. 265-358), appeared in 1836, and, as giving a general view of the structure of Birds, needs no praise here ; but its object was not to establish a classification, or throw light especially on systematic arrangement. So far from that being the case, its distinguished author was content to adopt, as he tells us, the arrangement proposed by Kirby in the Seventh Bridgewater Treatise (ii. pp. 445- 474), being that, it is true, of an estimable zoologist, but of one who had no special knowledge of Ornithology. Indeed it is, as the latter says, that of Linnaeus, improved by Cuvier, with an additional modification of Illiger's — all these tliree authors having totally ignored any but external characters. Yet it was regarded " as being the one which facilitates the expression of the leading anatomical differ- ences which obtain in the class of Birds, and which therefore may be considered as the most natural " ! 6o DICTION AR V OF BIRDS that in this passage, as well as in others that might be quoted, he was greater as an anatomist than as a logician. He was indeed thoroughly grounded in anatomy, and though undoubtedly the digestive organs of Birds have a claim to the fullest consideration, yet Macgillivray himself subsequently became aware of the fact that there were several other parts of their structure as important from the point of view of classification. He it was, apparently, who first detected the essential difference of the organs of voice presented by some of the New-World Passeres (subsequently known as Clamatores), and the earliest intimation of this seems to be given in his anatomical description of the Arkansas Flycatcher, Tyrannus verticalis, which was published in 1838 {Ornithol. Biog. iv. p. 425), though it must be admitted that he did not — because he then could not- — perceive the bearing of their difference, which was reserved to be shewn by the investigation of a still greater anatomist, and of one who had fuller facilities for research, and thereby almost revolutionized, as will presently be mentioned, the views of systematists as to this Order of Birds. There is only space here to say that the second volume of Macgillivray's work was published in 1839, and the third in 1840; but it was not until 1852 that the author, in broken health, found an opportunity of issuing the fourth and fifth. His scheme of classification, being as before stated partial, need not be given in detail. Its great merit is that it proved the necessity of combining another and hitherto much-neglected factor in any natural arrangement, though vitiated as so many other schemes have been by being based wholly on one class of characters.^ But a bolder attempt at classification was that made in 1838 by Blyth {Mag. Nat. Hist. New Ser. ii. pp. 256-268, 314-319, 351-361, 420-426, 589-601 ; iii. pp. 76-84). It was limited, however, to what he called Insessores, being the group upon which that name had been conferred by Vigors {Trans. Linn. Soc. xiv. p. 405) in 1823, with the addition, more- over, of his Eajjtores, and it will be unnecessary to enter into particulars concerning it, though it is equally as remarkable for the. insight shewn by the author into the structure of Birds as for the breadth of his view, which comprehends almost every kind of character that had been at that time brought forward. It is plain that Blyth saw, and perhaps he was the first to see it, that Geographical Distribution was not unimportant in suggesting the aflfiuities and differences of natural groups (pp. 258, 259) ; and, undeterred by the precepts and practice of the hitherto dominant English school of Ornithologists, he declared that " anatomy, when aided by every character which the manner of propagation, the progressive 1 This is not the place to dwell on Macgillivray's merits ; but I may perhaps be excused for repeating my opinion that, after Willughby, Macgillivray was the greatest and most original ornithological genius save one (who did not live long enough to make his powers Avidely known) that this island has produced. The exact amount of assistance he afforded to Audubon in his Ornithological Biography will probably never be ascertained ; but, setting aside " all the anatomical descriptions, as well as the sketches by which they are sometimes illustrated," that on the latter's own statement (ojj. cit. iv. Introduction, p. xxiii.) are the work of Macgillivray, no impartial reader can compare the style in which the History of British Birds is written with that of the Ornithological Biography without recognizing the similarity of the two. On this subject some remarks of Prof. Coues [B^dl. Nutt. Ornithol. Club, 18S0, p. 201) may well be consulted. INTRODUCTION 6i changes and other physiological data supply, is the only sure basis of classification." He was quite aware of the taxonomic value of the vocal organs of some groups of Birds, presently to be especially mentioned, and he had himself ascertained the presence and absence of casca in a not inconsiderable number of groups, drawing thence very justifiable infer- ences. He knew at least the earlier investigations of L'Herminier, and, though the work of Nitzsch, even if he had ever heard of it, must (through ignorance of the language in which it was written) have been to him a sealed book, he had followed out and extended the hints already given by Temminck as to the differences which various groups of Birds display in their moult. With all this it is not surprising to find, though the fact has been generally overlooked, that Blyth's proposed arrangement in many points anticipated conclusions that were su.bsequently reached, and were then regarded as fresh discoveries. It is proper to add that at this time the greater part of his work was carried on in conjunction with Mr. Bartlett, the present Superintendent of the Zoological Society's Gardens, and that, without his assistance, Blyth's opportunities, slender as they were compared with those which others have enjoyed, must have been still smaller. Considering the extent of their materials, which was limited to the bodies of such animals as they could obtain from dealers and the several menageries that then existed in or near London, the progress made in what has since proved to be the right direction is very wonderful. It is obvious that both these investigators had the genius for recognizing and interpreting the value of characters ; but their labours do not seem to have met with much encouragement ; and a general arrange- ment of the Class laid by Blyth before the Zoological Society at this time ^ does not appear in its publications, possibly through his neglect to reduce his scheme to writing and deliver it within the prescribed period. But even if this were not the case, no one need be surprised at the result. The scheme could hardly fail to be a crude performance — a fact which nobody would know better than its author ; but it must have presented much that was objectionable to the opinions then generally prevalent. Its line to some extent may be partly made out — very clearlj'-, for the matter of that, so far as its details have been published in the series of papers to which reference has been given — and some traces of its features are probably preserved in his Catalogue of the specimens of Birds in the Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, which, after several years of severe labour, made its appearance at Calcutta in 1849; but, from the time of his arrival in India, the onerous duties imposed upon Blyth, together with the want of sufficient books of reference, seem to have hindered him from seriously continuing his former researches, which, interrupted as they were, and born out of due time, had no appreciable eS'ect on the views of systematizers generally. Next must be noticed a series of short treatises communicated by Johann Friedrich Brandt, between the years 1836 and 1839, to the Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg, and published in its Memoires. ^ All abstract is contained in the Minnte-book of the Scientific Meetings of the Zoological Society, 26th June and 10th July 1838. The Class was to contain fifteen Orders, but only three were dealt with in any detail. / 62 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS In the year last mentioned the greater part of these was separately issued under the title of Beitrcige zur Kenntniss der Naturgeschichte der Vogel. Herein the author first assigned anatomical reasons for rearranging the Order Anseres of Linnaeus, the Natatores of Illiger, who, so long before as 1811, had proposed a new distribution of it into six Families, the defini- tions of which, as was his wont, he had drawn from external characters only. Brandt now retained very nearly the same arrangement as his predecessor ; but, notwithstanding that he could trust to the firmer foundation of internal framework, he took at least two retrograde steps. First he failed to see the great structural difterence between the Penguins (which Illiger had placed as a group, Impennes, of equal rank to his other Families) and the Auks, Divers and Grebes, Pygopodes — combining all of them to form a " Typus " (to use his term) Urinatores ; and secondly he admitted among the Natatores, though as a distinct " Typus " Podoidge, the genera Podoa (Finfoot), and Fulica (Coot), which are now known to be allied to the Eallidse. At the same time he corrected the error made by Illiger in associating the Phalaropes with these forms, rightly declaring their relationship to Tringa, a point of order which other systematists were long in admitting. On the whole Brandt's labours were of no small service in asserting the principle that consideration must be paid to osteology ; for owing to his position he was able to gain more attention to his views than some of his less favourably placed brethren had succeeded in doing. In the same year (1839) another slight advance was made in the classification of the true Passeres. Keyserling and Blasius briefly pointed out {Arch. f. Naturgesch. v. pp. 332-334) that, while all the other Birds provided with perfect song-muscles had the " planta " or hind part of the " tarsus " covered with two long and undivided horny plates, the Larks had this part divided by many transverse sutures, so as to be scutellated behind as well as in front ; just as is the case in many of the Passerines which have not the singing-apparatus, and also in the Hoopoe. The importance of this singular but superficial departure from the normal structure has been so needlessly exaggerated as a character that at the present time its value is apt to be unduly depreciated. In so large and so homogeneous a group as that of the true Passeres, a constant character of this kind is not to be despised as a practical mode of separating the Birds which possess it ; and, more than this, it would appear that the discovery thus announced was the immediate means of leading to a series of investigations of a much more important and lasting nature — those of Johannes Miiller to be presently mentioned. Again we must recur to that indefatigable and most original in- vestigator Nitzsch, who, having never intermitted his study of the particular subject of his first contribution to science, in 1833 brought out at Halle, where he was Professor of Zoology, an essay with the title Pterylograpihix Avium Pars prior. It seems that this was issued as much with the object of inviting assistance from others in view of future labours, since the materials at his disposal were scanty, as with that of making known the results to which his researches had already led him. Indeed he only communicated copies of this essay to a few friends, and INTRODUCTION 63 examples of it are comparatively scarce. Moreover, he stated subsequently that he thereby hoped to excite other naturalists to share with him the investigations he was making on a subject which had hitherto escaped notice or had been wholly neglected, since he considered that he had proved the disposition of the feathered tracts in the plumage of Birds to ioe the means of furnishing characters for the discrimination of the various natural groups as significant and important as they were new and un- expected.^ There was no need for us here to quote this essay in its chronological place, since it dealt only with the generalities of the subject, and did not enter upon any systematic details. These the author reserved for a second treatise which he was destined never to complete. He kept on diligently collecting materials, and as he did so was constrained to modify some of the statements he had published. He consequently fell into a state of doubt, and before he could make up his mind on some questions which he deemed important he was overtaken by death.^ Then his papers were handed over to his friend and successor, Burmeister, afterwards and for many years of Buenos Aires, who, with much skill elaborated from them the excellent work known as Nitzsch's Pterylog^ripMe, Avhich was published at Halle in 1840. There can be no doubt that the editor's duty was discharged with the most conscientious scrupulosity ; but, from what has been just said, it is certain that there were important points on which Nitzsch was as yet undecided — some of them perhaps of which no trace appeared in his manuscripts, and therefore as in every case of works posthumously published, unless (as rarely happens) they have received their author's ^^ imprimatur," they cannot be implicitly trusted as the expression of his final views. It would consequently be unsafe to ascribe positively all that appears in this volume to the result of Nitzsch's mature consideration. Moreover, as Burmeister states in his preface, Nitzsch by no means regarded the natural sequence of groups ^ It is still a prevalent belief that feathers grow almost uniformly over the whole surface of a Bird's body ; some indeed are longer and some are shorter, but that is about all the difference perceptible to most people. It is the easiest thing for any- body to satisfy himself that this, except in a few cases, is altogether an erroneous supposition (see Ptebtlosis). Before Nitzsch's time the only men who seem to have noticed this fact were the great John Hunter and the accurate Macartney. But the observations of the former on the subject were not given to the world until 1836, when Owen introduced them into his Catalogue of the Museum of the College of Surgeons in London (vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 811), and therein is no indication of the fact having a taxonomical bearing. The same may be said of Macartney's remarks, which, though subsequent in point of time, were published earlier, namely, in 1819 (Rees's Cyclopaedia, xiv. art. ' Feathers '). Ignorance of this simple fact has led astray many celebrated painters, among them Landseer, whose pictures of Birds nearly always shew an unnatural representation of the plumage that at once betrays itself to the trained eye, though of course it is not perceived by spectators generally, who regard only the correctness of attitude and force of expression, which in that artist's work commonly leave little to be desired. Every draughtsman of Birds to be successful should study as did Mr. Wolf, the plan on which their feathers are disposed. ^ Though not relating exactly to our present theme, it woiild be improper to dismiss Nitzsch's name -without reference to his extraordinary labours in investigating the insect and other external parasites of Birds, a subject which as regards British species was subsequently elaborated by Denny in his MonograpMa Anoj>hiroru7n Britannim (1842) and in his list of the specimens of British ^iKojoZwra in the collection of the British Museum. 64 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS as the highest problem of the systematist, but rather their correct limita- tion. Again the arrangement followed in the Pterylographie was of course based on pterylographical considerations, and we have its author's own word for it that he was persuaded that the limitation of natural groups could only be attained by the most assiduous research into the species of which they are composed from every point of view. The com- bination of these three facts will of itself explain some defects, or even retrogressions, observable in Isitzsch's later systematic work when com- pared with that which he had formerly done. On the other hand some manifest improvements are introduced, and the abundance of details into which he enters in his Pterylographie renders it far more instructive and valuable than the older performance. As an abstract of that has already been given, it may be sufficient here to point out the chief changes made in his newer arrangement. To begin with, the three great sections of Aerial, Terrestrial and Aquatic Birds are abolished. The "Accipitres" are divided into two groups, Diurnal and Nocturnal ; but the first of these divisions is separated into three sections : — (1) the Vultures of the New World, (2) those of the Old World and (3) the genus Falco of Linnajiis. The " Passerine," that is to say, the true Passeres, are split into eight Families, not wholly with judgment ; ^ but of their taxonomy more is to be said presently. Then a new Order "Picarise" is instituted for the reception of the Macrochires, Cuculinse, Picinse, Psittacinse, and Amphiholse, of his old arrangement, to which are added three ^ others — Caprimulginse, Todidee and Lipoglossee — the last consisting of the genera Biiceros, Upupa and Alcedo. The association of Alcedo ^vith the other two is no doubt a misplacement, but the alliance of Buceros to Upupa, already suggested by Gould and Blyth in 1838 ^ {Mag. Nat. Hist. ser. 2, ii. pp. 422 and 589), though at first sight unnatural, has been corroborated by many later systematizers ; and taken as a whole the establishment of the Picarise. was certainly a commendable proceeding. For the rest there is only one considerable change, and that forms the greatest blot on the whole scheme. Instead of the Ratitx of Merrem being recognized as before as a Subclass, they were now reduced to the rank of an Order under the name " Platysternx" and placed between the " GallinacBcX " and " Grallee" though it was admitted that in their pterylosis they differ from all other Birds, in ways that the author is at great pains ^ A short essay by Nitzsch on the general striictiire of the Passerines, ■^STiitten, it is said, in 18-36, was published in 1862 (Zeitschr. Ges. Ncditrwissensch. xix. pp. 389- 408). It is probably to this essay that Burmeister refers in the Ptenjlographie (p. 102, note ; English translation, p. 72, note) as forming the basis of the article " Passerinae " which he contributed to Erseh and Gruber's Encyklopddie (sect. iii. bd. xiii. pp. 139-144), and published before the Pterylographie. - By the numbers prefixed it would look as if there should be/oM?- new members of this Order ; but that seems to be due rather to a slip of the pen or to a printer's error. '^ This association is one of the most remarkable in the whole series of Blyth's remarkable papers on classification in the volume cited above. He states that Gould suspected the alliance of these two forms " from external structure and habits alone ; " otherwise one might suppose that he had obtained an intimation to that effect on one of his Continental journeys. Blj-th " aiTived at the same conclusion, however, by a different train of investigation," and this is beyond doubt. INTRODUCTION 65 to describe, in each of the four genera examined by him — Struthio, Rhea, Dromseus and Casuarius} It is significant that notwithstanding this he did not figure the pterylosis of any one of them, and the thought suggests itself that, though his editor assures us he had convinced himself that the group, must be here shoved in (eingescJiohen), the intrusion is rather due to the necessity which Nitzsch, in common with most men of his time (the Quinarians excepted), felt for deploying the whole series of Birds into line, in which case the proceeding may be defensible on the score of convenience. The extraordinary merits of this book, and the admirable fidelity to his principles which Burmeister shewed in the difficult task of editing it, were unfortunately overlooked for many years, and perhaps are not sufficiently recognized now. Even in Germany, the author's own country, there were few to notice seriously what is certainly one of the most remarkable works ever published on the science, much less to pursue the investigations that had been so laboriously begun. ^ Andreas Wagner, in his report on the progress of Ornithology (Arch. f. Naturgesch. vii. 2, pp. 60, 61), as might be expected from such a man as he was, placed the Ptenjlographie at the summit of those publications the appearance of which he had to record for the years 1839 and 1840, stating that for " Systematik " it was of the greatest importance. On the other hand Oken (/sis, 1842, pp. 391-394), though giving a summary of Nitzsch's results and classification, was more sparing of his praise, and prefaced his remarks by asserting that he could not refrain from laughter when he looked at the plates in Nitzsch's work, since they reminded him of the plucked fowls in a poulterer's shop — it might as well be urged as an objection to the plates in many an anatomical book that they called to mind a butcher's — and goes on to say that, as the author always had the luck to engage in researches of which nobody thought, so had he the luck to print them where nobody sought them. In Sweden Sundevall, with- out accepting Nitzsch's views, accorded them a far more appreciative greeting in his annual reports for 1840-42 (i. pp. 152-160) ; but of course in England and France ^ nothing was known of them beyond the scantiest notice, generally taken at second hand, in two or three publications.* ^ He does not mention Apteryx, at that time so little known on the Continent. ^ Some excuse is to be made for this neglect. Nitzsch had of course exhausted all the forms of Birds commonly to be obtained, and specimens of the less common forms were too valuable from the curator's or collector's point of view to be subjected to a treatment that might end in their destruction. Yet it is said, on good authority, that Nitzsch had the patience so to manipulate the skins of many rare species that he was able to ascertain the characters of their pterylosis by the inspection of their inside only, without in any way damaging them for the ordinary purpose of a museum. Nor is this surprising when we consider the marvellous skill of Continental and especially German taxidermists, many of whom have elevated their profession to a height of art inconceivable to most Englishmen, who are only acquainted with the miserable mockery of Nature which is the most sublime result of all but a few " bird- stufFers." ^ In 1836 Jacquemin communicated to the French Academy {Comptes Rendus, ii. pp. 374, 375 and 472) some observations on the order in which feathers are disposed on the body of Birds ; but, however general may have been the scope of his investigations, the portion of them published refers only to the Crow, and there is no mention made of Nitzsch's former work. * Thanks to Mr. Sclater, the Ray Society was induced to publish, in 1867. an 66 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS The treatise of Kessler on the osteology of Birds' feet, published in the Bulletin of the Moscow Society of Naturalists for 1841, next claims a few words, though its scope is rather to shew differences than affinities ; but treatment of that kind is undoubtedly useful at times in indicating that alliances generally admitted are unnatural ; and this is the case here, for, following Cuvier's method, the author's researches prove the artificial character of some of its associations. While furnishing — almost uncon- sciously, however — additional evidence for overthrowing that classification, there is, nevertheless, no attempt made to construct a better one ; and the elaborate tables of dimensions, both absolute and proportional, suggestive as is the whole tendency of the author's observations, seem not to lead to any very practical result, though the systematist's need to look beneath the integument, even in parts that are so comparatively little hidden as Birds' feet, is once more made beyond all question apparent. It has already been mentioned that Macgillivray furnished Audubon with a series of descriptions of some parts of the anatomy of American Birds, from subjects supplied to him by that enthusiastic naturalist, whose zeal -and prescience, it may be called, in this respect merits all praise. Thus he (prompted very likely by Macgillivray) wrote : — " I believe the time to be approaching when much of the results obtained from the inspection of the exterior alone will be laid aside ; when museums filled with stuffed skins will be considered insufficient to aft'ord a knowledge of birds ; and when the student will go forth, not only to observe the habits and haunts of animals, but to preserve specimens of them to be carefully dissected" (Orn. Biogr. iv. Introduction, p. xxiv.) As has been stated, the first of this series of anatomical descriptions appeared in the fourth volume of his work, published in 1838, but they were continued until its completion with the fifth volume in the following year, and the whole was incorporated into what may be termed its second edition. The Birds of America, which appeared between 1840 and 1844. Among the many species whose anatomy Macgillivray thus partly described from autopsy were at least half a dozen of those now referred to the Family Tyrant-birds, but then included, with many others, according to the vague and rudimentary notions of classification of the time, in what was termed the Family ^^ Mtcscicajyinse" In all these species he found the vocal organs to differ essentially in structure from those of other Birds of the Old World, which we now call Passerine, or, to be still more precise, Oscinine. But by him these last were most arbitrarily severed, dissociated from their allies, and wrongly combined with other forms by no means nearly related to them {Brit. Birds, i. pp. 17, 18) which he also examined ; and he practically, though not literally,^ excellent translation by Dallas of Nitzsch's Pterylograiphy, and thereby, however tardily, justice was at length rendered by British ornithologists to one of theii' greatest foreign brethren. The Society had the good fortune to obtain the ten original copper-f)lates, all but one drawn by the author himself, wherewith the work was illustrated. It is only to be regretted that the quarto size in which it appeared was not retained, for the folio form of the English version puts a needless impediment iu the way of its common and convenient use. On the important subject of the pterylograpliy of Bu'ds' wings see the works cited under Remiqes (page 781, note). ■^ Not literally, because a few other forms such as the genera Polio})tiIa and INTRODUCTION 67 asserted the truth, -when he said that the general structure, but especially the muscular appendages, of the lower larynx was " similarly formed in all other birds of this family" described in Audubon's work. Mac- gillivray did not, however, assign to this essential difference any systematic value. Indeed he was so much prepossessed in favour of a classification based on the structure of the digestive organs that he could not bring himself to consider vocal muscles to be of much taxonomic use, and it was reserved to Johannes Miiller to point out that the contrary was the fact. This the great German comparative anatomist did in two com- munications to the Academy of Sciences of Berlin, one on the 26th June 1845 and the other on the 14th May 1846, which, having been first briefly published in the Academy's Monatsbericht, were afterwards printed in full, and illustrated by numerous figures, in its Aihandlungen, though in this latter and complete form they did not appear in public until 1 847.^ This very remarkable treatise forms the groundwork of almost all later or recent researches in the comparative anatomy and consequent arrangement of the Passeres, and, though it is certainly not free from imperfections, many of them, it must be said, arose from want of material, notwithstanding that its author had command of a much more abundant supply than was at the disposal of Nitzsch. Carrying on the work from the anatomical point at which he had left it, correcting his errors, and utilizing to the fullest extent the observations of Keyserling and Blasius, to which reference has already been made, Miiller, though hampered by mistaken notions of which he seems to have been unable to rid himself, propounded a scheme for the classification of this group, the general truth of which has been admitted by all his successors, based, as the title of his treatise expressed, on the hitherto unknown different types of the vocal organs in the Passerines. He freely recognized the prior discoveries of, as he thought, Audubon, though really, as has since been ascertained, of Macgillivray ; but Miiller was able to perceive their systematic value, which Macgillivray did not, and taught others to know it. At the same time Miiller shewed himself, his power of discrimination notwithstanding, to fall behind Nitzsch in one very crucial point, for he refused to the latter's PiCAKiiE the rank that had been claimed for them, and imagined that the groups associated under that name formed but a third " Tribe " — PiCARii — of a great Order Insessores, the others being (1) the Oscines or Polymyodi — the Singing Birds by emphasis, whose inferior larynx was endowed with the full number of five pairs of song-muscles, and (2) the Tracheophones, composed of some South-American Families. Looking on Miiller's labours as we now can, we see that such errors as he committed are chiefly due to his want of special knowledge of Ornithology, com- bined with the absence in several instances of sufficient materials for investigation. Nothing whatever is to be said against the composition of Ptilogonys, now known to have no relation to the Tyrannidw, were included, though these forms, it would seem, had never been dissected by him. On the other hand he declared that the American Eedstart, Muscicapa, or, as it now stands, Setophaga ruticilla, when young, has its vocal organs like the rest — a statement corrected by Miiller in a Nachtrag (p. 405) to his paper next to be mentioned. ■•■ Also printed separately as Ueber die bisher unhekannten typischen Verschieden- heiten der Stimmorgane der Passerincn, 4to, Berlin : 1847. 68 DICTION AR V OF BIRDS his first and second " Tribes " ; but the third is an assemblage still more heterogeneous than that which Nitzsch brought together under a name so like that of Miiller — for the fact must never be allowed to go out of sight that the extent of the Picarii of the latter is not at all that of the Picarise of the former.^ For instance, Miiller places in his third " Tribe " the group which he called Ampelidse, meaning thereby the peculiar forms of South America that are now considered to be more properly named Cotingidse, (Chatterer), and herein he was clearly right, while Nitzsch, who, misled by their supposed affinity to the genus Ampelis (Waxwing) — peculiar to the Northern Hemisphere, and a purely Passerine form, had kept them among his Passerinse, was as clearly wrong. But again Miiller made his third " Tribe " Picarii also to contain the Tyrannidee, of which mention has just been made, though it is so obvious as now to be generally admitted that they have no very intimate relationship to the other Families with which they are there associated. There is no need here to criticize more minutely his projected arrangement, and it must be said that, notwithstanding his researches, he seems to have had some mis- givings that, after all, the separation of the Insessores into those " Tribes " might not he justifiable. At any rate he wavered in his estimate of their taxonomic value, for he gave an alternative proposal, arranging all the genera in a single series, a proceeding in those days thought not only defensible and possible, but desirable or even requisite, though now utterly abandoned. Just as Nitzsch had laboured under the disadvantage of never having any example of the abnormal Passeres of the New World to dissect, and therefore was wholly ignorant of their abnormality, so Miiller never succeeded in getting hold of an example of the genus Pitta for the same purpose, and yet, acting on the clew furnished by Keyserling and Blasius, he did not hesitate to predict that it would be found to fill one of the gaps he had to leave, and this to some extent it has been since proved to do. The result of all this is that the Oscines or true Passeres are found to be a group in which the vocal organs not only attain the greatest perfection, but are nearly if not quite as uniform in their structure as in the sternal apparatus ; while at the same time each set of characters is wholly unlike that which exists in any other group of Birds, as is set forth in Dr. Gadow's article Syrinx in the text. It must not be supposed that the muscles just defined were first dis- covered by Miiller ; on the contrary they had been described long before, and by many Avriters on the anatomy of Birds. To say nothing of foreigners, or the authors of general works on the subject, an excellent account of them had been given by Yarrell in 1829 {Tram. Linn. Soc. xvi. pp. 305-321, pis. 17, 18), an abstract of which was subsequently given in the article "Raven" in his History of British Birds, and Mac- gillivray also described and figured them with the greatest accuracy ten years later in his work with the same title (ii. pp. 21-3Y, pis. x.-xii.), while Blyth and Nitzsch had (as already mentioned) seen some of their value in classification. But Miiller has the merit of clearly outstriding his predecessors, and with his accustomed perspicacity made the way even ^ It is not needless to point out this fine distinction, for more than one modern author would seem to have overlooked it. INTROD UCTION 69 plainer for his successors to see than he himself was able to see it. What remains to add is that the celebrity of its author actually procured for the first portion of his researches notice in England {Ann. Nat. Hist. xvii. p. 499), though it must be confessed not then to any practical purpose.^ It is now necessary to revert to the year 1842, in which Dr. Cornay of Rochefort communicated to the French Academy of Sciences a memoir on a new Classification of Birds, of which, however, nothing but a notice has been preserved (Comptes Bendus, xiv. p. 164). T^vo years later this was followed by a second contribution from him on the same subject, and of this only an extract appeared in the official organ of the Academy {op. cit. xvi. pp. 94, 95), though an abstract was inserted in one scientific journal [V Institut, xii. p. 21), and its first portion in another {Journal des De'couvertes, i. p. 250). The Eevue Zoologique for 1847 (pp. 360-369) contained the whole, and enabled naturalists to consider the merits of the author's project, which was to found a new Classification of Birds on the form of the anterior palatal bones, which he declared to be subjected more evidently than any other to certain fixed laws. These laws, as for- mulated by him, are that (1) there is a coincidence of form of the anterior palatal bones and of the cranium in Birds of the same Order ; (2) there is a likeness between the anterior palatal bones in Birds of the same Order ; (3) there are relations of likeness between the anterior palatal bones in groups of Birds which are near to one another. These laws, he added, exist in regard to all parts that ofi'er characters fit for the methodical arrangement of Birds, but it is in regard to the anterior palatal bones that they un- questionably ofi^er the most evidence. In the evolution of these laws Dr. Cornay had most laudably studied, as his observations prove, a vast number of different types, and the upshot of his whole labours, though not very clearly stated, was such as wholly to subvert the classification at that time generally adopted by French ornithologists. He of course knew the investigations of L'Herminier and De Blainville on sternal formation, and he also seems to have been aware of some pterylological difi^erences exhibited in Birds — whether those disclosed by Nitzsch or those by Jacque- min is not stated. True it is the latter were never published in full, but it is conceivable that Dr. Cornay may have known their drift. Be that as it may, he declares that characters drawn from the sternum or the pelvis— hitherto deemed to be, next to the bones of the head, the most important portions of the bird's framework — are scarcely worth more, from a classificatory point of view, than characters drawn from the bill or the legs ; while pterylological considerations, together vdth many others to which some systematists had attached more or less importance, can only assist, and apparently must never be taken to control, the force of evi- dence furnished by this bone of all bones — the anterior palatal. ^ More than 30 years after proper tribute was rendered to one who by his investigations had so materially advanced the study of Ornithology, since in 1878 Mr. Sclater procured the publication at Oxford of an English version of this treatise under the title of .Johannes Miiller on Certctin Variations in the Vocal Organs of the Passeres that have hitherto escaped notice. It was translated by Prof. Jeffrey Bell, and Garrod added an appendix containing a summary of his own continuation of the same line of research. By some unaccountable accident, the date of the original com- munication to the Academy of Berlin is -wrongly printed. It is rightly given above. 70 DICTIONAR V OF BIRDS That Dr. Cornay was on the brink of making a discovery of consider- able merit will by and by appear ; but, with every disposition to regard his investigations favourably, it cannot be said that he accomplished it. No account need be taken of the criticism which denominated his attempt " unphilosophical and one-sided," nor does it signify that his proposals either attracted no attention or were generally received with indifference. Such is commonly the fate of any deep-seated reform of classification pro- posed by a comparatively unknown man, unless it happen to possess some extraordinarily taking qualities, or be explained with an abundance of pictorial illustration. This was not the case here. Whatever proofs Dr. Cornay may have had to satisfy himself of his being on the right track^ these proofs were not adduced in sufficient number nor arranged with sufficient skill to persuade a somewhat stiff-necked generation of the truth of his views — for it was a generation whose leaders, in France at any rate, looked with suspicion upon any one who professed to go beyond the bounds which the genius of Cuvier had been unable to overpass, and regarded the notion of upsetting any of the positions maintained by him as verging upon profanity. Moreover, Dr. Cornay's scheme was not given to the world with any of those adjuncts that not merely please the eye but are in many cases necessary, for, though on a subject which required for its proper comprehension a series of plates, it made even its final appearance unadorned by a single explanatory figure, and in a journal, respectable and well-known indeed, but one not of the highest scientific rank. Add to all this that its author, in his summary of the practical results of his investigations, committed a grave sin in the eyes of rigid systematists by ostentatiously arranging the names of the forty types which he selected to prove his case wholly without order, and without any intimation of the greater or less affinity any one of them might bear to the rest. That success should attend a scheme so inconclusively elaborated could not be expected. The same year which saw the promulgation of the crude scheme just described, as well as the publication of the final researches of Miiller, witnessed also another attempt at the classification of Birds, much more limited indeed in scope, but, so far as it went, regarded by most orni- thologists of the time as almost final in its operation. Under the vague title of ' Ornithologische Notizen ' Prof. Cabanis of Berlin contributed to the Archiv fur Naturgeschichte (xiii. 1, pp. 186-256, 308-352) an essay in two parts, wherein, following the researches of Miiller^ on the syrinx, in the course of which a correlation had been shewn to exist between the whole or divided condition of the flanta or hind part of the " tarsus " (first noticed, as has been said, by Keyserling and Blasius) and the presence or absence of the perfect song-apparatus, the younger author found an agreement which seemed almost invariable in this respect, and he also pointed out that the flanta of the different groups of Birds in which it is divided, is divided in different modes, the mode of division being generally characteristic of the group. Such a coincidence of the internal ■^ On the other hand, Miiller makes several references to the labours of Prof, Cabanis. The investigations of both authors must have been proceeding simultan- eously, and it matters little which actually appeared first. INTRODUCTION 71 and external features of Birds was naturally deemed a discovery of great value by those ornithologists who thought most highly of the latter, and it was unquestionably of no little practical utility. Further examination also revealed the fact^ that in certain groups the number of "primaries," or quill-feathers growing from the matnis of the wing, formed another characteristic easy of observation. In the Oscines or Polymyodi of Miiller the number was either nine or ten — and if the latter the outermost of them was generally very small. In two of the other groups of which Prof. Cabanis especially treated — groups which had been hitherto more or less confounded with the Oscines — the number of primaries was invari- ably ten, and the outermost of them was comparatively large. This observation was also hailed as the discovery of a fact of extraordinary importance ; and, from the results of these investigations taken altogether, Ornithology was declared by Sundevall, undoubtedly a man who had a right to speak with authority, to have made greater progress than had been achieved since the days of Cuvier. The final disposition of the " Sub- class Insessores" — all the perching birds, that is to say, which are neither Birds-of-Prey nor Pigeons — proposed by Prof. Cabanis, was into four " Orders," as follows : — 1. Oscines, equal to Mliller's group of the same name. 2. Clamatores, being a majority of that division of the Picariee of Nitzsch, so called by Andreas Wagner, in 1841,^ which have their feet normally constructed. 3. Strisores, a group now separated from the Clamatores of Wagner, and containing those forms which have their feet abnormally constructed ; and 4. Scansores, being the Grimpeurs of Cuvier, the Zygodactyli of several other systematists. The first of these four " Orders " had been already indefeasibly estab- lished as one perfectly natural, but respecting its details more must pre- sently be said. The remaining three are now seen to be artificial associa- tions, and the second of them, Clamatores, in particular, containing a very heterogeneous assemblage of forms ; but it must be borne in mind that the internal structure of some of them was at that time still more imper- fectly known than now. Yet even then, enough had been ascertained to have saved what are now recognized as the Families Todidse and Tyran- nidse from being placed as " Subfamilies" in the same " Family Golopteridse" ; and several other instances of unharmonious combination in this " Order " might be adduced were it worth while to particularize them. More than that, it would not be difficult to shew, only the present is not exactly the ^ This seems to have been made kno^vn by Prof. Cabanis the preceding year to the ' Gesellschaft der Naturforschender Freunde ' {cf. Miiller, StimmorgoMe der Pas- serinen, p. 65). Of course the variation to which the number of primaries was subject had not escaped the observation of Nitzsch, but he had scarcely used it as a classificatory character. ^ Archiv fur Naturgeschichte, vii. 2, pp. 93, 94. The division seems to have been instituted by this author a couple of years earlier in the second edition of his Handbuch der Natiirgeschichte (which I have not seen), but not then to have received a scientific name. It included all Picarise which had not " zygodactylous " feet, that is to say, toes placed in pairs, two before and two behind. y2 DICTION AR V OF BIRDS place for it, that some groups or Families wliicli in reality are not far distant from one another are distributed, owing to the dissimilarity of their external characters, throughout these three Orders. But to return to the Oscines, the arrangement of which in the classification now under notice has been deemed its greatest merit, and consequently has been very generally followed. That by virtue of the perfection of their vocal organs, and certain other properties — though some of these last have perhaps never yet been made clear enough — they should stand at the head of the whole Class, may be freely admitted, but the respective rank assigned to the various component Families of the group is certainly open to question, and to the present writer seems, in the methods of several systematists, to be based upon a fallacy. This respective rank of the different Families appears to have been assigned on the principle that, since by reason of one character (namely, the more complicated structure of their syrinx) the Oscines form a higher group than the Claviatores, therefore all the concomitant features which the former possess and the latter do not must be equally indicative of superiority. Now one of the features in which most of the Oscines differ from the lower " Order " is the having a more or less undivided 2:)lanta, and accordingly it has been assumed that the Family of Oscines in which this modification of the planta is carried to its extreme point must be the highest point of that " Order." Since, therefore, this extreme modification of the flanta is exhibited by the Thrushes and their allies, it is alleged that they must be placed first, and indeed at the head of all Birds. The groundlessness of this reasoning ought to be apparent to everybody. In the present state of anatomy at any rate, it is impossible to prove that there is more than a coincidence in the facts just stated, and in the association of two characters — one deeply seated and affecting the whole life of the Bird, the other superficially, and so far as we can perceive without effect upon its organism. Because the Glamatores, having no song-muscles, have a divided planta, it cannot be logical to assume that among the Oscines, which possess song-muscles, such of them as have an undivided ^danta must be higher than those that have it divided. The argument, if it can be called an argument, is hardly one of analogy ; and yet no stronger ground has been occupied by those who invest the Thrushes, as do the majority of modern systematists, with the most dignified position in the whole Class. But passing from general to j)ar- ticular considerations, so soon as a practical application of the principle is made its inefficacy is manifest. The test of perfection of the vocal organs must be the perfection of the notes they enable their possessor to utter. There cannot be a question that, sing admirably as do some of the Birds included among the Thrushes,^ the Larks, as a Family, infinitely surpass them. Yet the Larks form the very group which, as elsewliere ^ Prof. C'abauis would have strengthened his position had he included in the same Family with the Thrushes, which he called BJiacnemidas, the Inrds commonly known as Warblers, Si/lviidse, which the more advanced of recent systematists are inclined with much reason to unite with the Thrushes, Turdidas ; but instead of that he, trusting to the plantar character, segix'gated the Warblers, including of course the Nightingale, and did not even allow them the second place in his method, putting INTRODUCTION /j shewn (Lark, page 511), have the flanta more divided than any other among the Oscines. It seems hardly possible to adduce anything that would more conclusively demonstrate the independent nature of each of these characters — the complicated structure of the syrinx and the asserted inferior formation of the ijlanta — which are in the Alaiididse. associated.^ Moreover, this same Family affords a very valid protest against the ex- treme value attached to the presence or absence of the outermost quill- feather of the wings, and in this work it is also shewn (loc. cit.) that almost every stage of magnitude in this feather is exhibited by the Larks from its almost abortive condition in Alauda to its very considerable development in Mirafra. Indeed there are many genera of Oscines in which the proportion that the outermost "primary" bears to the rest is at best but a specific character, and certain excej)tions are allowed by Prof Cabanis (p. 313) to exist.- Some of them it is now easy to explain, inasmuch as in a few cases the apparently aberrant genera have elsewhere found a more natural position, a contingency to which he himself was fully awake.2 But as a rule the allocation and ranking of the different Families of Oscines by this author must be deemed arbitrary. Yet the value of his Ornitliologische Notizen is great, not only as evidence of his extensive acquaintance with different forms, which is proclaimed in every page, but in leading to a far fuller appreciation of characters that certainly should on no account be neglected, though too much importance may easily be, and already has been, assigned to them.* This will perhaps be the most convenient place to mention another kind of classification of Birds, which, based on a principle wholly difterent from those that have just been explained, requires a few words, though it has not been productive, nor is it likely, from all that appears, to be pro- ductive of any great effect. So long ago as 1831, Bonaparte, in his Saggio di una distrihuzione metodica degli Animali Vertebrati, published at Rome, and in 1837 communicated to the Linnean Society of London, 'A new Systematic Arrangement of Vertebrated Animals,' which was subsequently printed in that Society's Transactions (xviii. pp. 247-304), though before it appeared there was issued at Bologna, under the title of Syno2ms Vertebratoruvi Systematis, a Latin translation of it. Herein he them below the Family called by him Sylvicolidas, consisting chiefly of the American forms now known as Mniotiltidas, none of which as songsters approach those of the Old World. ^ It must be observed that Prof. Cabanis does not place the Alaudidse, lowest of the seventeen Families of which he makes the ^Oscines to be composed. They stand eleventh in order, while the Corvidse are last — a matter on which something may be said in the sequel. ^ The American Family Vireonidw (Vikeo) presents some notable examples, though there it is stated that the tenth primary is always present, but often concealed by the ninth {cf. Coues, Key JV. Am. Birds, ed. 2, p. 331). ■* By a ciirious error, probably of the press, the number of primaries assigned to the Paradiseidm and Corvidse is wrong (pp. 334, 335). In each case 10 should be substituted for 19 and 14. * A more extensive and detailed application of his method was begun by Prof. Cabanis in the Museum Heineanum, a useful catalogue of specimens in the collection of the late Oberamtmann Heine, of which the first part appeared at Halberstadt in 1850, and the last, the work being still unfinished, in 1863. A Nomendator of the same collection was printed at Berlin 1882-90 by its owner's son and Dr. Eeichenow. 74 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS divided the Class Aves into two Subclasses, to which he applied the names of Insessores and Grallatores (hitherto used by their inventors Vigors and IlLiger in a different sense), in the latter work relying chiefly for this division on characters which had not before been used by any systematist, namely, that in the former group Monogamy generally prevailed and the helpless nestlings were fed by their parents, while the latter group were mostly Polygamous, and the chicks at birth were active and capable of feeding themselves. This method, which in process of time was dignified by the title of a Physiological Arrangement, was insisted upon with more or less pertinacity by the author throughout a long series of publications, some of them separate books, some of them contributed to the memoirs issued by many scientific bodies of various European countries, ceasing only at his death, which in July 1857 found him occupied upon the unfinished Conspectus Generum Avium before mentioned. In the course of this series, however, he saw fit to alter the name of his two Subclasses, since those which he at first adopted were open to a variety of meanings, and in a communication to the French Academy of Sciences in 1853 {Gomptes Reiidus, xxxvii. pp. 641-647) the denomination Insessores was changed to Altnces, and Grallatores to Praecoces — the terms now preferred by him being taken from Sundevall's treatise of 1835 already mentioned. The views of Bonaparte were, it appears, also shared by an ornithological amateur of some distinction, Hogg, who propounded a scheme which, as he subsequently stated {Zool. 1850, p. 2797), was founded strictly in accordance with them ; but it would seem that, allowing his convictions to be warped by other considerations, he abandoned the original "physiological" basis of his system, so that this, when published in 1846 (EcUnb. N. Philos. Journ. xli. pp. 50-71) was found to be established on a single character of the feet only, whereon he defined his Subclasses Gon- stridiixdes and Inconstrictipedes. The numerous errors made in his asser- tion hardly need pointing out. Yet the idea of a " physiological " arrange- ment on the same kind of principle found another follower, or, as he thought, inventor, in Newman, who published {Proc. Zool. Soc. 1850, pp. 46-48, and Zool. pp. 2780-2782) a plan based on exactly the same considerations, dividing Birds into two groups, " Hesthogenous " — a word so vicious in formation as to be incapable of amendment, but intended to signify those that were hatched -with a clothing of down — and " Gj^mnogenous," or those that were hatched naked. These three systems are essentially identical ; but, plausible as they may be at the first aspect, they have been found to be practically useless, though such of their characters as their upholders have advanced with truth deserve attention, and, as will be seen in the present work. Dr. Gadow's terms Nidicolee and Nidifugie, used in no systematic sense, express with greater accuracy what is needed. Physiology may one day very likely assist the systematist ; but it must be real jihysiology and not a sham. In 1856 Prof. Gervais, who had already contributed to the Zoologie of M. de Castelnau's Expedition dans les parties centrales de VAme'rique dii Hud some important memoirs describing the anatomy of the Hoactzin (page 421) and certain other Birds of doubtful or anomalous i^osition, published some remarks on the characters which could be drawn from the INTRODUCTION 73 sternum of Birds {Ann. Sc. Nat. Zoologie, ser. 4, vi. pp. 5-15). The con- siderations are not very striking from a general point of view ; but the author adds to the weight of evidence which some of his predecessors had brought to bear on certain matters, particularly in aiding to abolish the artificial groups " Deodactyls," " Syndactyls " and " Zygodactyls," on which so much reliance had been placed by many of his countrymen ; and it is with him a great merit that he was the first apparently to recognize publicly that characters drawn from the posterior part of the sternum, and particularly from the " echancrures," commonly called in English " notches " or " emarginations," are of comparatively little importance, since their number is apt to vary in forms that are most closely allied, and even in species that are usually associated in the same genus or unquestionably belong to the same Family,^ while these " notches," sometimes become simple foramina, as in certain Pigeons, or on the other hand foramina may exceptionally change to "notches," and not unfrequently disappear wholly. Among his chief systematic determinations we may mention that he refers the Tinamous to the Rails, because apparently of their deep " notches," but otherwise takes a view of that group more correct according to modern notions than did most of his contemporaries. The Bustards he would place with the "Limicoles," as also Dromas (Crab-Plover) and Chionis, (Sheathbill). Phaethon (Teopic- bird) he would place with the " Larides " and not with the " Pelecanides," which it only resembles in its feet having all the toes connected by a web. Finally Divers, Auks and Penguins, according to him, form the last term in the series, and it seems fit to him that they should be regarded as form- ing a separate Order. It is a curious fact that even at a date so late as this, and by an investigator so well informed, doubt should still have existed whether Apteryx should be referred to the group containing the Cassowary and the Ostrich. On the whole the remarks of this esteemed author do not go much beyond such as might occur to any one who had made a study of a good series of specimens ; but many of them are published for the first time, and the author is careful to insist on the necessity of not resting solely on sternal characters, but associating with them those drawn from other parts of the body. Three years later in the same journal (xi. pp. 11-145, pis. 2-4) M. Blanchard published some Eecherches sur les caraderes osteologiques cles Oiseaux applique'es a la Classification naturelle de ces animaux, strongly urging the superiority of such characters over those drawn from the bill or feet, which, he remarks, though they may have sometimes given correct notions, have mostly led to mistakes, and, if observations of habits and food have sometimes afl:orded happy results, they have often been decep- tive ; so that, should more be wanted than to draw up a mere inventory of creation or trace the distinctive outline of each species, zoology without anatomy would remain a barren study. At the same time he states that authors who have occupied themselves with the sternum alone have often ^ Thus he cites the cases of Machetes pugnax and Scolopax rustinda among the "Limicoles," and Larus cataractes among the "Larides," as differing from their nearest allies by the possession of only one " notch " on either side of the keel {cf. suprd, page 49). j6 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS produced uncertain results, especially when they have neglected its anterior for its posterior part ; for in truth every bone of the skeleton ought to be studied in all its details. Yet this distinguished zoologist selects the sternum as furnishing the key to his primary groups or " Orders " of the Class, adopting, as Merrem had done long before, the same two divisions Garmatas and Ratitse, naming, however, the former Tropidosternii and the latter Homalosternii?- Some unkind fate has hitherto hindered him from making known to the world the rest of his researches in regard to the other bones of the skeleton till he reached the head, and in the memoir cited he treats of the sternum of only a portion of his iirst " Order." This is the more to be regretted by all ornithologists since he intended to conclude with what to them would have been a very great boon — the shewing in what way external characters coincided with those presented by Osteology. It was also within the scope of his plan to have continued on a more extended scale the researches on ossification begun by L'Herminier, and thus M. Blanchard's investigations, if com- pleted, would obviously have taken extraordinarily high rank among the highest contributions to ornithology. As it is, the 32 pages we have of them are of considerable 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 Falconidse and Vulturidee of the systematist of his time, but distinguishing the American Vultures from those of the Old World ; (2) Gypogeranus (Secretary-bird) ; and (3) the Owls. Next he places the Parrots, and then the vast assemblage of " Passereaux " — which he declares to be all of one type, even genera like Pipra (Manakin) and Pitta — and concludes with the somewhat hetero- geneous conglomeration of forms, beginning with Gypselus (Swift), that so many systematists have been accustomed to call Picarige, though to them as a group he assigns no name.^ 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 ornithologists in their studies in this respect, Eyton, who for many years had been forming a collection of Bird's skeletons, began the publication of a series of plates representing them. The first part of this work, Osteologia Avium., appeared early in 1859, and a volume was completed in 1867. 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 1 These terms were explained in liis great work L' Organisation dii Reiyne Anima!, Oiseaux (p. 16), begun in. 1855, and unhappily unfinished, to mean exactly the same as those applied by Merrem to his two primary divisions. - M. Blanchard's animadversions on the employment of external characters, and on trusting to observations on the habits of Birds, called iorth a rejoinder from Mr. Wallace {Ibis, 1864, pp. 36-41), who successfully shewed that they are not altogether to be despised. INTRODUCTION 77 accompanying letterpress is too brief to be satisfactory. A somewhat similar work, Alhildungen von Vogel-Skeletten, was begun in 1879 by Dr. A. B. Merer, and is still in progress, 210 plates of Birds' skeletons having already appeared. Some of these are excellent, but photography, by means of which they are all represented, is an unintelligent art, and as the sun shines alike on the evil and the good, so minor characters are as faithfully portrayed as those which are of importance, and indeed the latter are often, from the nature of the case, obscure or even indistinguish- able. Yet we may be sure that every possible care was taken to avoid the disappointment thus caused.^ That the eggs laid by Birds should offer to some extent characters of utility to systematists is only to be expected, when it is considered that those from the same nest generally bear an extraordinary family-likeness to one another, and also that in certain groups the essential peculiarities of the egg-shell are constantly and distinctively 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 is stated in the text (p. 182), the expectation held out to oologists, and by them, of the benefits to be conferred upon Systematic Ornithology from the study of Birds' eggs, so far from being fulfilled, has not unfrequently led to disappointment. But at the same time many of the shortcomings of Oology in this respect must be set down to the defective information and observation of its votaries, among whom some have been very lax, not to say incautious, in not 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 in journals at various times, Des Murs in 1860 brought out at Paris his ambitious Traite general d'Oologie Ornithologique au point de vue de la Classification, elsewhere mentioned (Eggs, page 191, note), which contains (pp. 529-538) a 'Systema Oologicum' 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. This being the case, it would seem useless to take up further space by analysing the several proposed modifications of Cuvier's arrange- ment which the author takes as his basis. 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 {Ihis, 1860, pp. 331-335). The attempt of Des Murs was praiseworthy ; but in efli'ect it has utterly failed, notwithstand- ■• A countless number of osteologieal papers have appeared in journals, and to name them would here be impossible. The more important have generally been mentioned in the body of this work in connexion with the species or group of species they illustrate ; but many that are good are necessarily passed over. g 78 DICTION AR V OF BIRDS ing the encomiums passed upon it by friendly critics {Rev. de Zoologie, 1860, pp. 176-183, 313-325, 370-373).i 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 prosecuting 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.^ Here there is no need to enter into details of the history ef Evolutionary theories ; but the annalist in every branch of Biology must record the eventful First of July 1858, when the now cele- brated views of Darwin and Mr. Wallace were first laid before the scientific world,^ and must also notice the appearance towards the end of the follow- ing year of the former's Origin of Sioecies, which has effected one of the greatest revolutions of thoiight 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 hesitation was only the natural consequence of the caution which their scientific train- ing 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 " Natural Selection " ; but even those who had hitherto believed, and still continued to believe, in the sanctity of " Species " 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 arguments which they gradually found to be irresistible. But, ^ 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 are named elsewhere (p. 188, note), but to them must be added Mr. Poynting's Eggs of British Birds (at ]iresent confined to the Limicolm), the figures of which are excellent, and Capt. Bendire's work mentioned above (page 37). 2 Neither Lamarck nor Robert Chambers (the now acknowledged author of Vestiges of Creation), though thorough evolutionists, rationally indicated any means whereby, to use the ohl phrase, " the transmutation of species " could be eii'ected. ^ Journal of the Proceedings of tlie Linncan Society, iii. Zoology, pp. 45-62. INTRODUCTION yg leaving generalities apart, and restricting ourselves to wliat is here our proper business, there was possibly no branch of Zoology in which so many of the best informed and consequently 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. Questions of Affinity, and the details of Geographical Distribution, were endowed with a real interest, in comparison with 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 began to figure to themselves 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 Eeptilian parent whence all Birds have sj^rung 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 remarks of Canon Tristram, who, in treating of the Alaudidx and Saxicolinee 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 "not help feeling convinced of the truth of the views set forth by Messrs. Darwin and Wallace," adding that it was " hardly possible, I should think, to illustrate this theory better than by the Larks and Chats of North Africa." 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 the time unpopular philosophy.^ But greater work was at hand. In June 1860 the late Prof. W. K. Parker broke, as most will allow, entirely fresh ground, and ground that during his life he continued to till more deeply perhaps than any other man by communicating to the Zoological Society a memoir ' On the Osteology of Baleeniceps' {Sino-EBiijh), subsequently published in that Society's Transactions (iv. pp. 269-351). Of this contribution to science, as of all the rest which ^ Whether Canon Tristram was anticipated in any other, and if so in what, branch of Zoology will be a pleasing enquiry for the historian of the future. DICTIONARY OF BIRDS have since proceeded from liim, may be said in the words he himself has applied (torn. cit. p. 271) to the work of another labourer in a not distant field : — " This is a model paper for unbiassed observation, and freedom from that pleasant mode of supjjosing instead of ascertaining what is the true nature of an anatomical element." ^ 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 convic- tion that has become strengthened as, in a series of successive memoirs, the stores of more than twenty years' silent observation and unremitting research 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.^ Moreover, the doctrine of Descent with variation is preached in all — seldom, if ever, conspicuously, but perhaps, all the more effectively on that account. There is no reflective thinker but must perceive that Morphology is one of the lamps destined to throw light 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 Parker's ^ It is fair to state that some of Parker's conclusions respecting Balwniceps were contested by J. T. Reinhardt {Overs. K. D. Vid. Selsk. Forhandliiiger, 1861, pp. 135- 154 ; Ibis, 1862, pp. 158-175), and it seems to the present writer not ineffectually. Parker replied to Ms critic {Ibis, 1862, pp. 297-299). ^ It may be convenient that a list of Parker's principal 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 — On the Osteology of the Gallinaceous Birds and Tinamoas, v. pp. 149-241 ; On some Fossil Birds from the Zebbug Cave, vi. pp. 119-124 ; On the Osteology of the Kagu, vi. pp. 501-521 ; On the ^githognathous Birds, Pt. I. ix. pp. 289-352, Pt. II. x. pp. 251-314. In the Proceedings of the same Society — 1863, On the systematic position of the Crested Screamer, pp. 511-518 ; 1865, On the Osteology of Microglossa alecto, pp. 235-238. In the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society — 1865, On the Structure and Development of the Skull in the Ostrich Tribe, pp. 113-183 ; 1869, On the Structure and Development of the Skull of the Common Fowl, pp. 755-807 ; 1888, On the Structure and Development of the Wing of the Common Fowl, pp. 385-398. In the Linnean Society's Transactions — On the Morphology of the Skull in the Wood- peckers and Wrynecks, ser. 2, Zoology, i. pp. 1-22 ; On the Structure and Development of the Bird's Skull, torn. CTif. pp. 99-154 ; 1891, On the Morphology of the Gcdlinacex. In the Monthly Microscopical Journal for 1872, — On the Structure and Development of the Crow's Skull, pp. 217-226, 253 ; for 1873, On the Development of the Skull in the genus Tiurdus, pp. 102-107, and On the Development of the Skull in the Tit and Sparrow Hawk, parts i. and ii., pp. 6-11, 45-50. In the Gunningham Memoirs of the Royal Irish Academy, No. vi. (Dublin : 1890), On the Morphology of the Duck and Auk Tribes. There is beside the great work published by the Ray Society in 1868, A Monograph on the Structure and Development of the Shoidder-girdle and Sternum, of which pp. 142-191 treat of these parts in the Class Aves ; and the first portion of the article 'Birds' in tlie JUneycl. Brit. ed. 9, iii. pp. 699-728. Nearly each of this marvellous scries is copiously illustrated by figures from drawings made by the author. INTRODUCTION 8i hands. The great fault of Ms series of memoirs, if it may be allowed the present writer to criticize them, is the indifference of their author to for- mulating 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 "to merit near allied," 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 dis- appointing to the systematist to find that the man whose life-long application would have enabled him, better than any one else, to declare the effect of the alliances and differences shewn to exist among various members of the Class, should yet have been so reticent, or that when he spoke 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.^ For some time past rumours of a discovery of the highest interest had been agitating the minds of zoologists, for in 1861 Andreas Wagner had sent to the Academy of Sciences of Munich (Sitzungsber. pp. 146-154 ; Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 3, ix. pp. 261-267) an account of what he conceived to be a feathered Eeptile (assigning to it the name Griphosaurus), the remains of which had been found in the lithographic beds of Solenhofen ; but he himself, through failing health, had been unable to see the fossil. In 1862 the slabs containing the remains were acquired by the British Museum, and towards the end of that year Owen communicated a detailed description of them to the Royal Society {Philos. Trans. 1863, pp. 33-47), proA'ing their Bird-like nature, and referring them to the genus Archseopteryx of Hermann von Meyer, hitherto known only by the impression of a single feather from the same geological beds. Wagner foresaw the use that would be made of this discovery by the adherents of the new Philosophy, and, in the usual language of its opponents at the time, strove to ward off the " misinterpretations " that they would put upon it. His protest, it is needless to say, was unavailing, and all who respect his memory must regret that the sunset of life failed to give him that insight into the future which is poetically ascribed to it. To Darwin and those who believed with him scarcely any discovery could have been more ^ welcome ; but that is beside our present business. It was quickly seen — even by those who held ArchxoiJteryx to be a Reptile^that it was a form intermediate between existing Birds and existing Reptiles — while those who were convinced by Owen's researches of its ornithic affinity saw that it must belong to a type of Birds wholly unknown before, and one that in any future arrangement of the Class must have a special rank reserved for it.^ It is elsewhere briefly described and figured in this work (Fossil Birds, pages 2 7 8-2 8 0).^ -^ As an instance, take the passages in whicli Turnix and Thinocorys are apparently referred [Trans. Zool. Soc. ix. pp. 291 et seqq. ; and Encycl. Brit. ed. 9, iii. p. 700) to the jEgithognathie, a view -which, as shewn by the author {Trans, x. p. 310), is not that really intended by him. " This was done in 1866 by Prof. Hackel, who {Ge7i. Morpliol. ii. pp. xi., cxxxis.- cxli.) proposed the name Saueidr^ for the group containing it. ^ It behoves us to mention the ' Outlines of a Systematic Review of the Class of 82 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS In the spring of the year 1867 the late Prof. Huxley, to the delight of an appreciative audience, delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons of England a course of lectures on Birds, and it is much to be regretted that his many engagements hindered him from publishing in its entirety his elucidation of the anatomy of the Class, and the results which he drew from his investigations of it ; for never assuredly had the subject been attacked with greater skill and power, or, since the days of Buflon, had Ornithology been set forth with greater eloquence. To remedy, in some degree, this unavoidable loss, and to preserve at least a portion of the fruits of his labours, Huxley, a few weeks after, presented an abstract of his researches to the Zoological Society, in whose Pj'oceedings for the same year it will be found printed (pp. 415-472) as a paper ' On the Classifica- tion of Birds, and on the taxonomic value of the modifications of certain of the cranial bones observable in that Class.' Starting from the basis (which, undeniably true as it is, not a little shocked many of his ornithological hearers) " that the phrase ' Birds are greatly modified Reptiles ' would hardly be an exaggerated expression of the closeness " of the resemblance between the two Classes, which he had previously brigaded- under the name of Sauropsida (as he had brigaded the Pisces and Amjjhibia as Ichthijo'psida), he drew in bold outline both their likenesses and their differences, and then proceeded to enquire how the Aves could be most appropriately subdivided into Orders, Suborders and Families. In this course of lectures he had already dwelt at some length on the insuificiency of the characters on which such groups as had hitherto been thought to be established were founded ; but for the consideration of this part of his subject there was no room in the present paper, and the reasons why he arrived at the conclusion that new means of philosophically and successfully separating the class must be sought were herein left to be in- ferred. The upshot, however, admits of no uncertainty : the Class Aves was held to be composed of three "Orders" — SauruRjE (p. 814); Ratit^ Birds,' communicated by Prof. Lilljeborg to the Zoological Society in 1866, and published in its Proceedings for that year (pp. 5-20), since it was immediately after reprinted by the Smithsonian Institution, and with that authorization has exercised a great influence on the opinions of American ornithologists. Otherwise the scheme would hardly need notice here. This paper is indeed little more than an English . translation of one published by the author in the annual volume {Arsskrift) of the Scientific Society of Upsala for 1860 ; and, belonging to the pre-Darwinian epoch, should perhaps have been more properly treated before, but that at the time of its original appearance it failed to attract attention. The chief merit of the scheme perhaps is that, contrary to nearly every precedent, it begins with the lower and rises to the higher groups of Birds, which is of course the natural mode of proceeding, and one therefore to be commended. Otherwise the " principles " on which it is founded are not clear to the ordinary zoologist. One of them is said to be " irritability," which is explained to mean, not "muscular strength alone, but vivacity and activity generally," and on this ground it is stated that the Passeres should be placed highest in the Class. But those who know the habits and demeanour of many of the Limicolse would no doubt rightly claim for them much more " vivacity and activity " than is possessed by most Passeres. " Irritability " does not seem to form a character that can be easily appreciated either as to quantity or quality ; in fact most persons would deem it quite immeasurable, and, as such, removed from practical con- sideration. Moreover, Prof. Lilljeboi-g's scheme, being actually an adaptation of that of Suudevall, of wliich we shall have to speak almost immediately, may possibly be left for the present with these remarks. INTRODUCTION 83 (p. 766) and CarinaT/E (p. 76). The SatirurgR have the metacarpals well developed and not ancylosed, and the caudal vertebrae are numerous and large, so that the caudal region of the spine is longer than the body. The furcula is complete and strong, the feet are very Passerine in appearance. The skull and sternum were at the time unknown, and indeed the whole Order, without doubt entirely extinct, rested exclusively on the celebrated fossil, then unique, Arch%o])teryx just mentioned. The Eatitss comprehend the "Struthious" Birds, which differ from all others now extant in the com- bination of several peculiarities, some of which have been mentioned in the preceding pages. The sternum has no keel, and ossifies from lateral and paired centres only ; the axes of the scapula and coracoid have the same general direction ; certain of the cranial bones have characters very unlike those possessed by the next Order — the vomer, for example, being broad posteriorly and generally intervening between the basisphenoidal rostrum and the palatals and pterygoids ; the barbs of the feathers are disconnected ; there is no syrinx or inferior larynx ; and the diaphragm is better developed than in other Birds.^ The Ratitee are divided into five groups, separated by very trenchant characters, principally osteological, and many of them afforded by the cranial bones. These groups consist of (i.) Struthio (Ostrich), (ii.) Ehea, (iii.) Gasuarius Cassowary, and Dromeeus (Emeu), (iv.) Dinornis (Moa) and (v.) Apteryx (Kiwi) ; but no names are here given to them. The Garinataz comprise all other existing Birds. The sternum has more or lese of a keel, and is said to ossify, with the possible exception of Stringops (Kakapo), from a median centre as well as from paired and lateral centres. The axes of the scapula and coracoid meet at an acute, or, as in Didus (Dodo) and Ocydromus (Weka), at a slightly obtuse angle, while the vomer is comparatively narrow and allows the pterygoids and palatals to articulate directly with the basisphenoidal rostrum. The Garinatse are diAdded, according to the formation of the palate, into four "Suborders," and named (i.) Drom^ognath^, (ii.) SCHIZOGNATH^, (iii.) DESMOGNATHiE and (iv.) MGlinOGNATSJE.^ The Dromxognatlise, resemble the Batitee, and especially Dromeeus, in their palatal structure, and are composed of the Tinamous. The Schizognathee include a great many of the forms belonging to the Linneean Orders Gallinae, Grallx and Anseres. In them the vomer, however variable, always tapers to a point anteriorly, while behind it includes the basisphenoidal rostrum between the palatals ; but neither these nor the pterygoids are borne by its posterior divergent ends. The maxillo- palatals are usually elongated and lamellar, uniting with the palatals, and, bending backward along their inner edge, leave a cleft (whence the name given to the " Suborder ") between the vomer and themselves. Six groups of Schizognathee are distinguished with considerable minuteness : — (1) Charadriomorph^ ; (2) GERANOMORPHiE ; (3) Cecomorph^ ; (4) ■■■ This peculiarity had led some zoologists to consider the " Struthious " Birds more nearly allied to the Mammalia than any others. ^ These names are compounded respectively of Dromasus, the generic name applied to the Emeu, crxt'fa, a split or cleft, d^a/ma, a bond or tj'ing, aiyi6os, a Finch, and, in each case, yvddos, a jaw. The constitution of the several groups is explained in the body of this work under names here printed in small capitals, but is repeated for the convenience of the reader. 84 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS Spheniscomorph^ ; (5) Alectoromorph^ ; and finally (6) Peristero- MORPH.E. In the third of these "Suborders," the Desviogjiathse, the vomer is either abortive or so small as to disappear from the skeleton. When it exists it is always slender, and tapers to a point anteriorly. The maxillo-palatals are bound together (whence the name of the " Suborder ") across the middle line, either directly or by the ossification of the nasal septum. The posterior ends of the palatals and anterior of the pterygoids articulate directly with the rostrum. The groups of Desmognathge are characterized as carefully as are those of the preceding " Suborder," and are as follows :—(l) Chenomorph^ ; (2) Amphimorph^ ; (3) Pelargo- MORPH^ ; (4) DySPOROMORPH^ ; (5) AetOMORPH^ ; (6) PSITTACOMORPH^; and lastly (7) Cocctgomorph^, containing four groups, to which, however,' names were not given. Next in order come the Celeomorph^, a group respecting the exact position of which Prof. Huxley was uncertain,i though he inclined to think its relations were with the next group, ^GiTHOGNATH^, the fourth and last of his "Suborders," characterized by a form of palate in some respects intermediate between the two pre- ceding. The vomer is broad, abruptly truncated in front, and deeply cleft behind, so as to embrace the rostrum of the sphenoid ; the palatals have produced postero-external angles ; the maxillo-palatals are slender at their origin, and extend obliquely inwards and forwards over the palatals, end- ing beneath the vomer in expanded extremities, not united either with one another or with the vomer, nor does the latter unite with the nasal septum, though that is frequently ossified. Of the ^githognathse two divisions are made— (1) Ctpselomorph^, and (2) Coracomorph^,^ which last are separable into two groups, one (a) formed of the genus Menura (Lyre-bird), which then seemed to stand alone, and the oth'er (6) made up of PoLYMYODiE, TRACHEOPHONiE and Oligomyod^, sections founded on the syringeal structure, but declared to be not natural. The above abstract ^ shews the general drift of this very remarkable contribution to Ornithology, and it has to be added that for by far the greater number of his minor groups Huxley relied solely on the form of the palatal structure, the importance of which Cornay, as already stated (page 69), had before urged, though to so little purpose. That the palatal structure must be taken into consideration by taxonomers as affording hints of some utility there could no longer be a doubt ; but the present writer is inclined to think that the characters drawn thence owe more of their worth to the extraordinary perspicuity with which they were presented by Huxley than to their own intrinsic value, and that if the same power had been employed to elucidate in the same way other parts of the skeleton — say the bones of the sternal apparatus or even of the pelvic girdle — either set could have been made to appear quite as in- structive and perhaps more so. Adventitious value would therefore seem 1 Prof. Parker subsequently advanced the Woodpeckers to a higher rank under the name of Saurognath^ {Microscop. Journ. 1872, p. 219, and Tr. Linn. Soc. ser. 2, Zoology, i. p. 2). I By mistake this group was referred (page 104) to the Desmognatlious Birds. _ •" Tliis is adapted from one {Record of Zool. Lit. iv. pp. 46-49) which was sub- mitted to the author's approval. INTRODUCTION 85 to have been acquired by tlie bones of the palate through the fact that so great a master of the art of exposition selected them as fitting examples upon which to exercise his skill.^ At the same time it must be stated this selection was not premeditated by him, but forced itself upon him as his investigations proceeded.^ In reply to some critical remarks {Ibis^ 1868, pp. 85-96), chiefly aimed at shewing the inexpediency of relying solely on one set of characters, especially when those afforded by the palatal bones were not, even within the limits of Families, wholly diagnostic, the author {This, 1868, pp. 357-362) announced a slight modification of his original scheme, by introducing three more groups into it, and concluded by indicating how its bearings upon the great question of " Genetic Classification " might be represented so far as the different groups of Garinatx are concerned : — Tinamomorphse. I Turnicomorphse. i CharadriomorpliK. CecomorpliEe. Geranomorphse. I I Splienisooinorpliffi. AetomorphaB. I Alectoromorplife. PteroclomorpliEe. Peristeromorpliaj. Palamedea. Chenomorphse. AmphimorphEe. Pelargomorphse. Psittacomorphse Coccygomorphse iEgithognathse. Dysporomorphse. HeteromorphK. The above scheme, in Huxley's opinion, nearly represents the affinities of the various carinate groujDs, — the great difficulty being to determine the relations to the rest of the Goccygoviorphse, Psittacomoiyhse and JEgitliognaihm, which he indicated "only in the most doubtful and hypothetic fashion." Almost simultaneously with this he expounded more particularly (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1868, pp. 294-319) the groups of which he believed the Alectoromorphee to be composed and the relations to them of some outlying forms usually regarded as Gallinaceous, the Turnicidse (Hemipode) and Pterodidse, (Sand-Grouse), as well as the singular Hoactzin, for all three of which he had to institute new groups — the last forming the sole repre- sentative of his Heteromorph^. More than this, he entered upon their Geographical Distribution, the facts of which important subject were, ^ The notion of the superiority of the palatal bones to all others for purposes of classification has pleased many persons, from the fact that these bones are not unfrequently retained in the dried skins of Birds sent home by collectors in foreign countries, and are therefore available for study, while such bones as the sternum and pelvis are rarely preserved. The common practice of ordinary collectors, until at least very recently, has been tersely described as being to " shoot a bird, take off its skin and throw away its characters." ^ Perhaps this may be partially explained by the fact that the Museum of the College of Surgeons, in which these investigations were chiefly carried on, like most other museums, contained a much larger series of the heads of Birds than of their entire skeletons or of any other portion of the skeleton. Consequently the materials available for the comparison of different forms consisted in great part of heads only. DICTIONARY OF BIRDS almost for the first time, since the attempt of Blyth already mentioned,! brought to bear practically on Classification, as has been previously hinted (Geographical Distribution, page 313); but, the subject being treated elsewhere at some length, there is no need to enter upon it here. Nevertheless it is necessary to mention here the intimate connexion between Classification and Geographical Distribution as revealed by the palaeontological researches of Prof Alphonse Milne-Edwards, whose mag- nificent Oiseauz Fossiles de la France began to appear in 1867, and was completed in 1871— the more so, since the exigencies of his undertaking compelled him to use materials that had been almost wholly neglected by other investigators. A large proportion of the fossil remains the determination and description of which were his object were what are commonly called the « long bones ", that is to say, those of the limbs. The recognition of these, minute and fragmentary as many were, and the referring them to their proper place, rendered necessary an attentive study of the comparative osteology and myology of Birds in general, that of the " long bones," whose sole characters were often a few muscular ridges or" depressions, being especially obligatory. Hence it became manifest that a very respectable Classification can be found in which characters drawn from these bones play a rather important part. Limited by circumstances as is that followed by M. Milne-Edwards, the details of his arrangement do not require setting forth here. It is enough to point out that we have in his work another proof of the multiplicity of the factors which must be taken into consideration by the systematist, and another proof of the fallacy of trusting to one set of characters alone. But this is not the only way in which the author has rendered service to the advanced student of Ornithology. The unlooked-for discovery in France of remains which he has referred to forms now existing it is true, but existing only in countries far removed from Europe, forms such as Gollocalia, Leptosomus, Psittacus, Serpentarius and Trogon, is perhaps even more suggestive than the finding that France was once inhabited by forms that are wholly extinct, of which, as is elsewhere mentioned (Fossil Birds, pages 284, 288), there is abundance in the older formations. Un- fortunately none of these, for none is old enough, can be compared for singularity with Archseopteryx or with some American fossil forms next to be noticed, for their particular bearing on our knowledge of Ornithology will be most conveniently treated here. In November 1870 Prof. Marsh, by finding the imperfect fossilized tibia of a Bird in the Middle Cretaceous shale of Kansas, began a series of wonderful discoveries which will ever be associated with his name,2 and, making us acquainted with a great number of forms long since vanished 1 It is true that from the time of BufFon, though he scorned any regular Classifi- cation, Geographical Distribution had been occasionally held to have something to do with systematic arrangement ; but the way in which the two were related was never clearly put forth, though people who could read between the lines might have guessed the secret from Darwin's Journal of Researches, as well as from his introduction to the Zoology of the ' Beagle ' Voyage. 2 jt ^iji of course be needless to remind the general zoologist of Prof. Marsh's no less wonderful discoveries of wholly unlooked-for types of Reptiles and Mammals. INTRODUCTION 87 from among the earth's inhabitants, has thrown a comparatively broad beam of light through the darkness that, broken only by the solitary spark emitted on the recognition of Archseopteryx, had hitherto brooded over our knowledge of the genealogy of Birds, and is even now for the most part palpable. Subsequent visits to the same part of North America, often performed in circumstances of discomfort and occasionally of danger, brought to this intrepid and energetic explorer the reward he had so fully earned. Brief notices of his spoils appeared from time to time in various volumes of the American Joiirnal of Science and Arts (Silliman's), but it is unnecessary here to refer to more than a few of them. In that Journal for May 1872 (ser. 3, iii. p. 360) the remains of a large swimming Bird (nearly 6 feet in length, as afterwards appeared) having some affinity, it was thought, to the Colymhidse, were described under the name of Hesper- ornis regalis, and a few months later (iv. p. 344) a second fossil Bird from the same locality was indicated as Ichthyornis dispar — from the Fish-like, biconcave form of its vertebrte. Further examination of the enormous collections gathered by the author, and preserved in the Museum of Yale College at New Haven in Connecticut, shewed him that this last Bird, and another to which he gave the name of Apatornis, had possessed well-developed teeth implanted in sockets in both jaws, and induced him to establish for their reception a " Subclass " Odontornithes (page 649) and an Order Ichthyornithes. Two years more and the origin- ally found Hesperornis was discovered also to have teeth, but these were inserted in a groove. It was accordingly regarded as the type of a distinct Order Odontolc^e (Loc. cit), to which were assigned as other characters vertebrae of a saddle-shape and not biconcave, a keelless sternum and wings consisting only of the humerus. In 1880 Prof. Marsh brought out a grand volume, Odontornithes, being a monograph of the extinct toothed Birds of North America. Herein remains, attributed to no fewer than a score of species, which were referred to eight different genera, are fully described and sufficiently illustrated, and, instead of the ordinal name Ichthyornithes previously iised, that of ODONTOTORMiE {loc. cit.) was proposed. In the author's concluding summary he remarks on the fact that, while the Odontolcee, as exhibited in Hesperornis, had teeth inserted in a continuous groove — a low and generalized character as shewn by Reptiles, they had, however, the strongly differentiated saddle-shaped vertebrae such as all modern Birds possess. On the other hand the Odontotormse, as exemplified in Ichthyornis, having the primitive biconcave vertebrae, yet possessed the highly specialized feature of teeth in distinct sockets. Hesperornis too, with its keelless sternum, had aborted wings but strong legs and feet adapted for swimming, while Ichthyornis had a keeled sternum and powerful wings, but diminutive legs and feet. These and other characters separate the two forms so widely as quite to justify their assignment to distinct Orders, and the opposite nature of the evidence they afford illustrates one fundamental principle of Evolution, namely, that an animal may attain to great development of one set of characters and at the same time retain other features of a low ancestral type. Prof. Marsh states that he had fully satisfied himself that Archse- opteryx belonged to the Odontornithes, which he thought it advisable for 88 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS the present to regard as a Subclass, separated into three Orders — Odontolcse, Odontotormee and Saururse. — all well marked, but evidently not of equal rank, the last being clearly much more widely distinguished from the first two than they are from one another. But that these three oldest- known forms of Birds should differ so greatly from each other unmistak- ably points to a great antiquity for the Class. All are true Birds ; but the Keptilian characters they possess converge towards a more generalized type. He then proceeds to treat of the characters which may be expected to have occurred in their common ancestor, whose remains may yet be hoped for from the Paleozoic rocks, or at least from the Permian beds that in North America are so rich in the fossils of a terrestrial fauna. Birds, he believes, branched off by a single stem, which gradually lost its Reptilian as it assumed the Ornithic type ; and in the existing Ratitse we have the survivors of this direct line. The lineal descendants of this primal stock doubtless at an early time attained feathers and warm blood, but, in his opinion, never acquired the power of flight, which probably originated among the small arboreal forms of Reptilian Birds. In them even rudi- mentary feathers on the fore-limbs would be an advantage, as they would tend to lengthen a leap from branch to branch, or break the force of a fall in leaping to the ground. As the feathers increased, the body would become warmer and the blood more active. With still more feathers would come increased power of flight as we see in the young Birds of to-day. A greater activity would result in a more perfect circulation. A true Bird would doubtless require warm blood, but would not necessarily be hot-blooded, like the Birds now living. Whether Archadopteryx was on the Carinate line cannot as yet be determined, and this is also to be said of Ichthyornis ; but the biconcave vertebrae of the latter suggest its being an early offshoot, while it is jDrobable that Hesperornis came off from the main " Struthious " stem and has left no descendants. From this bright vision of the poetic past — a glimpse, some may call it, into the land of dreams — ^we must relapse into a sober contemplation of the prosaic present — a subject quite as difficult to understand. The former efforts at classification made by Sundevall have already several times been mentioned, and a return to their consideration was promised. In 1872 and 1873 he brought out at Stockholm a Methodi Naturalis Avium Disponendarum Tentamen, two portions of which (those relating to the Diurnal Birds-of-Prey and the " Gichlomorphse^^ or forms related to the Thrushes) he found himself under the necessity of revising and modi- fying in the course of 1874, in as many communications to the Swedish Academy of Sciences {K. V.-Ah Forhandl. 1874, No. 2, pp. 21-30 ; No. 3, pp. 27-30). This Tentamen, containing a complete method of classify- ing Birds in general, naturally received much attention, the more so perhaps, since, with its appendices, it was nearly the last labour of its respected author, whose industrious life came to an end in the course of the following year. From what has before been said of his works it may have been gathered that, while professedly basing his systematic arrange- ment of the groups of Birds on their external features, he had liitherto striven to make his schemes harmonize if j^ossible Avith the dictates of internal structure as evinced by the science of anatomy, though he INTRODUCTION uniformly and persistently protested against the inside being better than the outside. In thus acting he proved himself a true follower of his great countryman Linnaeus ; but, without disparagement of his efforts in this respect, it must be said that when internal and external characters appeared to be in conflict he gave, perhaps with unconscious bias, a preference to the latter, for he belonged to a school of zoologists whose natural instinct was to believe that such a conflict always existed. Hence his efforts, praiseworthy as they were from several points of view, and particularly so in regard to some details, failed to satisfy the philosophic taxonomer when generalizations and deeper principles were concerned, and in his practice in respect to certain technicalities of classification he was, in the eyes of the orthodox, a transgressor. Thus instead of contenting him- self with terms that had met with pretty general approval, such as Class, Subclass, Order, Suborder, Family, Subfamily and so on, he introduced into his final scheme other designations, "Agmen," "Cohors," "Phalanx" and the like, which to the ordinary student of Ornithology convey an indefinite meaning, if any meaning at all. He also carried to a very extreme limit his views of nomenclature, which were certainly not in accordance with those held by most zoologists, though this is a matter so trifling as to need no details in illustration. It is by no means easy to set forth briefly, and at the same time intelligibly, to any but experts, the final scheme of Sundevall, owing to the number of new names intro- duced by him, and there is no need here to make the attempt, for experts would rather consult the work itself or the English version of it.i Praised in various quarters as Sundevall's perfected System was on its appearance, the present writer felt from the first that it would speedily be seen to what little purpose so many able men had laboured if arrangement and grouping so manifestly artificial — the latter often of forms possessing no real affinity — could pass as a natural method. He was not so sanguine as to hope that it might be the last of its kind, though any one accustomed to look deeper than the surface must have seen its numerous defects, and almost every one, whether so accustomed or not, ought by its means to be brought to the conclusion that, when a man of Sundevall's knowledge and experience could not, by trusting only to external characters, do better than this, the most convincing proof is afforded of the inability of external characters alone to produce anything save ataxy. The principal merits it possesses are confined to the minor arrangement of some of the Oscines ; but even here many of the alliances, such, for instance, as that of Pitta with the true Thrushes, are indefensible on any rational grounds, and some, as that of Accentor with the Weaver-birds, verge upon the ridiculous, while on the other hand the interpolation of the American Warblers, Mniotiltidse, between the normal Warblers of the Old World and the Thrushes is as bad — especially when the genus Mniotilta is placed, notwithstanding its different wing-formula, with the Tree-creepers, Certhiidss. The whole work unfortunately betrays throughout an utter want of the sense of proportion. In many of the large groups very slight differences are allowed to keep the forms exhibiting them widely apart, while in 1 Sundevall's Tentamen, Translated into English with Notes, by Francis Nicholson. London : 1889. go DICTIONARY OF BIRDS most of the smaller groups differences of far greater kind are overlooked, so that the forms which present them are linked together in more or less close union. Thus, regarding only external characters, great as is the structural distinction between the Gannets, Cormorants, Frigate-birds and Pelicans, it is not held to remove them from the limits of a single Family ; and yet the Thrushes and the Chats, whose distinctions are barely sensible, are placed in separate Families. Again, even in one and the same group, the equalization of characters indicative of Families is wholly neglected. Thus among the Pigeons the genera Didus and Didunculus, which differ, so far as we know it, in every external character of their structure, are placed in one Family, and yet on very slight pretext the genus Goura, which in all respects so intimately resembles ordinary Pigeons, is set apart as the representative of a distinct Family. The only use of dwelling upon these imperfections here is the hope that thereby students of Ornithology may be induced to abandon the belief in the efficacy of external characters as a sole means of classification, and, seeing how unmanageable they become unless checked by internal characters, be persuaded of the futility of any attempt to form an arrangement without that solid foundation which can only be obtained by a knowledge of anatomy. Where Sundevall failed no one else is likely to succeed ; for he was a man gifted with intelligence of a rare order, a man of cultivation and learning, one who had devoted his whole life to science, who had travelled much, studied much and reflected much, a man whose acquaintance with the literature of his subject probably exceeded that of any of his contemporaries, and a man whose linguistic attainments rendered him the envy of his many friends. Yet what should have been the crowning work of his long life is one that all who respected him, and that comprehends all who knew him, must regret, though apart from his systematic treatment his handiwork is admirable.^ Of the very opposite kind was the work of the two men next to be mentioned — Garrod and Forbes — both cut short in a career of promise ^ ■^ In 1882 Dr. Eeichenow prefixed to his Vogel der Zoologischen Garten another scheme of Classification, which, though out of order, may here be mentioned, from its treatment being in several respects similar to Sundevall's. Its author gave (i. p. viii.) the representation of a genealogical tree {Stammhaum) shewing the descent of existing Birds from those which were furnished with teeth (of which more presently) by four principal stems — 1. "Kurzflugler", Br'evipennes ; 2. speedily dividing into "Schwimm- vogel", Natatores and " Stelz vogel ", Grallatores ; 3. " Girrvogel ", Gyrantes ; and 4. " Fanger ", Ca^iatores, "Paarzeher", Fibulatores and "Ba,umv'6ge\", Arboricolai, which succeed one another in the order named. These all form 7 Series (Reike) and are split into 17 Orders. The sense of proportion seems here more lamentably wanting than in Sundevall's Tentamen. All the " Struthious " Birds form one Family, and the Oscines contain 21 ! While Series 5, Gyrantes, consists only of the Columbas, Series 6, Cax>tatores, includes Grypturi, Rasores (all Gallinie and Ojnsthocomtis), and Ra}]- tatores — containing Vulturidie {Sarcorliamphinx, Vulturinw and Gypastinw), Fal- conidse and Slrigidas. This will shew that no account is taken of any structural characters excei3t those which are superficial ; but the author's tree of ornithic genealogy may be regarded as an important feature, having been anticipated, so far as I know, only by that of Prof. Hiickel {Gen. Mor2)liol. ii. Taf. vii.) which went but a short way. - Alfred Henry Garrod, Prosector to the Zoological Society of Loudon, died of consumption in 1879, aged thirty-three. His successor in tliat office, William Alexander Forbes, fell a victim to the deadly climate of the Niger in 1883, and in his twenty-eighth year. INTRODUCTION gi that among students of Ornithology has rarely been eqiialled and perhaps never surpassed. The present writer finds it difl&cult to treat of the labours of two pupils and friends, for while fully recognizing the brilliant nature of some of their researches, he is compelled very frequently to dissent from the conclusions at which they arrived, deeming them to have often been of a kind that, had their authors survived to a maturer atje, they would have greatly modified. Still he well knows that learners are mostly wiser than their teachers ; and, making due allowance for the haste with which, from the exigencies of the post they successively held, their investigations had usually to be published, he believes that much of the highest value underlies even the crudest conjectures contained in their several contributions to Ornithology. Putting aside the monographical papers by which each of them followed the excellent example set by their predecessor in the office they filled — Dr. Murie^ — and beginning with Garrod's,2 those having a more general scope, all published in the Zoological Society's Proceedings, may be briefly considered. Starting from the level reached by Huxley, the first attempt made by the younger investigator was in 1873, " On the value in Classification of a Peculiarity in the anterior margin of the Nasal Bones in certain Birds." Herein he strove to prove that Birds ought to be divided into two Subclasses — one, called " HoLORHiNAL," in which a straight line drawn transversely across the hindmost points of the external narial apertures passes in front of the posterior ends of the nasal processes of the prsemaxillse, and the other, called " ScHizoRHiNAL," in which such a line passes behind those processes. If this be used as a criterion, the validity of Huxley's group Schizognathse is shaken ; but there is no need to enlarge upon the proposal, for it was virtually abandoned by its author within little more than a twelvemonth. The next subject in connexion with Systematic Ornithology to which Garrod applied himself was an investigation of the Carotid Arteries, and here, in the same year, he made a considerable advance upon the labours of Nitzsch, as might well be expected, for the opportunities of the latter were very limited, and he was only able, as we have seen (page 65), to adduce four types of structure in them, while Garrod, with the superior advantages of his situation, raised the number to six. Nevertheless he remarks that their " disposition has not much significance among Birds, there being many Families in which, whilst the majority of the species have two, some have only one carotid," The exceptional cases cited by him are quite sufficient to prove that the condition of this artery has nearly no value from the point of view of general classification (c/. pages 76, 77). If relied upon it would split up the Families Bricerotidse and ■' Dr. Murie's chief papers having a direct bearing on Systematic Ornithology are : — in the Zoological Society's Transactions (vii. p. 465), ' On the Dermal and Visceral Structures of the Kagu, Sun-Bittern and Boatbill ' ; in the same Society's Proceedings — (1871, p. 647) 'Additional Notice concerning the Powder-Downs of Rhinochetus jubaius\ (1872, p. 664) 'On the Skeleton of Todus with remarks as to its Allies', (1879, p. 552) 'On the Skeleton and Lineage of Fregilupus varius' ; in The lbis~(l872, p. 262) 'On the genus Colius', (1872, p. 383) 'Motmots and their af&nities', (1873, p. 181) 'Relationships of the Upiqndw.' ^ Garrod's Scientific Papers were collected and published in a memorial volume edited by Forbes in 1881. There is therefore no need to give a list of them here. Forbes's papers were similarly edited by Mr. Beddard in 1885. g2 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS Cypselidee, which, no sane person would doubt to be homogeneous and natural. The femoral vessels formed another subject of investigation, and were found to exhibit as much exceptional conformation as those of the neck — for instance in Gentropus phasianus, one of the Birds known as CouCALS, the femoral artery accompanies the femoral vein, though it does not do so in another species of the genus, G. rufipennis, nor in any other of the Guculidee (to which Family the genus Gentropus has been always assigned) examined by Garrod. Nor are the results of the very great labour which he bestowed upon the muscular conformation of the thigh in Birds any more conclusive when they come to be impartially and carefully considered. Myology was with him always a favourite study, and he may be not unreasonably supposed to have had a strong feeling as to its efficacy for systematic ends. It was in favour of an arrangement based upon the muscles of the thigh, and elaborated by him in 1874, that he gave up the arrangement he had published barely more than a year before based upon the conformation of the nostrils. Nevertheless it appears that even the later of the two methods did not eventually content him, and this was only to be expected, though he is said by Forbes {Ibis, 1881, p. -28) to have remained "satisfied to the last as to the naturalness of the two main groups into which he there divided birds " — HoiiALO- GONATiE and Anomalogonat^. The key to this arrangement lay in the presence or absence of the ambiens muscle, " not because of its own intrinsic importance, but because its presence is always associated with peci;liarities in other parts never found in any Anomalogonatous bird." Garrod thought that so great was the improbability of the same combination of three or four different characters (such as an accessory femoro-caudal muscle, a tufted oil-gland and c^ca) arising independently in different Birds that similar combinations of characters could only be due to blood-relationship. The ingenuity with which he found and expressed these combinations of characters is worthy of all praise ; the regret is that time was wanting for him to think out all their consequences, and that he did not take also into account other and especially osteological characters. Every osteologist must recognize that the neglect of these makes Garrod's proposed classi- fication as unnatural as any that had been previously drawn up, and more unnatural than many. So much is this the case that, with the knowledge we have that ere his death he had already seen the need of introducing some modifications into it, its reproduction here, even in the briefest abstract possible, would not be advisable. Two instances, however, of its failure to shew natural affinities or differences may be cited. The first Order Galliformes of his Subclass Homalogonatee is made to consist of three "Cohorts" — Struthiones, Gallinacese and Psittaci — a somewhat astonishing alliance ; but even if that be allowed to pass, we find the second " Cohort " composed of the Families Palamedeidse, Gallince, Eallida^, Otididee (containing two Subfamilies, the Bustards and the Flamingoes), Musophagidx and Guculidee. Again the Subclass Anomalogonatm includes three Orders — Piciformes, Passeriformes, Gypseliformes — a preliminary to which at first sight no exception need be taken ; but immediately we look into details we find the Alccdinidce placed in the first Order and the Meropidee in the second, together with the Passcres and a collection of INTRODUCTION gj Families almost every feature in the skeleton of which points to a separa- tion. Common sense revolts at the acceptance of any scheme which involves so many manifest incongruities. With far greater pleasure we would leave these investigations, and those on certain other muscles, as well as on the Disposition of the deep plantar Tendons, and dwell upon his researches into the anatomy of the Passerine Birds with the view to their systematic arrangement. Here he was on much safer ground, and it can hardly be doubted that his labours will stand the test of future experience, for, though it may be that all his views will not meet with iiltimate approval, he certainly made the greatest advance since the days of Miiller, to the English translation of whose classical work he added (as before mentioned) an excellent appendix, besides having already con- tributed to the Zoological Proceedings between 1876 and 1878 four memoirs replete with observed facts which no one can gainsay. As his labours were continued exactly on the same lines by Forbes, who between 1880 and 1882 published in the same journal six more memoirs on the subject, it will be convenient here to state generally, and in a combined form, the results arrived at by these two investigators. Instead of the divisions of Passerine Birds instituted by Miiller, Garrod and Forbes having a wider range of experience considered that they had shewn that the Passeres consist of two primary sections, which the latter named respectively Desmodactyli and Eleutherodactyli, from the facts discovered by the former that in the Eurylsemidee, (Broadbill), a small Family peculiar to some parts of the Indian Eegion, and consisting of some ten or twelve species only, there is a strong band joining the muscles of the hind toe exactly in the same way as in many Families that are not Passerine, and hence the name Desmodactyli, while in all other Passerines the hind toe is free. This point settled, the Eleutherodactyli form two great divisions, according to the structure of their vocal organs ; one of them, roughly agreeing with the Clamatores of some writers, is called Mesomtodi, and the other, corresponding in the main, if not absolutely, with the 0 seines, Polymyodi, or true Passeres of various authors, is named AcROMTODi — " an Acromyodian bird being one in which the muscles of the syrinx are attached to the extremities of the bronchial semi-rings, a Mesomyodian bird being one in which the muscles of the syrinx join the semi-rings in their middle." Furthermore, each of these groups is sub- divided into two : the Acromyodi into " normal " and " abnormal," of which more presently ; the Mesomyodi into Homceomeri and Heteromeri, according as the sciatic or the femoral artery of the thigh is developed — the former being the usual arrangement among Birds and the latter the exceptional. Under the head Heteromeri come only two Families, but these Garrod was inclined to think should not be considered distinct. The Homceomeri form a larger group, and are at once separable, on account of the structure of their vocal organs, into Tracheophonx (practically equivalent to the Tracheophones of Miiller) and Haploophon^ (as Garrod named them) — the last being those Passeres which were by Miiller erroneously included among his Picarii, namely, the Tyrannidse (Tyrant) with Rujncola (Cock-of-the-Rock) and Pitta. To these are now added Families not examined by him, — but subsequently ascertained by Forbes h g4 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS to belong to the same group, — Philepitticlse and Xenicidae, more properly Acanthidosittidee, (Xenicus), and it is remarkable that these last three Families are the only members of the Mesomyodi which are not peculiar to the New World — nay more, if we except the Tyrannidx, which in North America occur chiefly as migrants, — not peculiar to the Neotropical Eegion. The Tracheophonse are held to contain five Families — Furnariidae, (Oven-bird), Ptemptochidee (Tapaculo), Dendrocolaptidee (Picucule), ConopophagidsR and Formicariidse, (Ant-Thrush). Eeturning now to the Acromyodi, which include, it has just been said, a normal and an abnormal section, the latter consists of Birds agreeing in the main, though not absolutely, as to the structure of the syrinx with that of the former, yet differing so considerably in their osteology as to be most justifiablyseparated. At that time only two types of these abnormal Acromyodi were known — Menura (Lyre-bird) and Atrichornis (Scrub-bird), both from Australia, while all the remaining Passeres, that is to say, incomparably the greater number of Birds in general, belong to the normal section. Thus the whole scheme of the Passeres,'^ as worked out by Garrod and Forbes, can be briefly expressed as below ; and this expression, so far as it goes, is probably near the truth, though for simplicity's sake some of the inter- mediate group-names might perhaps be omitted : — ELE UTHERODA GTYLI, ACROMYODI, NOBMALES, Abnormales, Menura, Atrichornis. MESOMYODI, HOMCEOMEEI, Tracheoplionse, Furnariidie, PteroptocMclm, Dendrocolapticlte, Conopophagidm, For- raicariidse. HaploophonEe, Tyrannidee, Rupicola, Pittidse, PhUepittidie, Xenicidse. Heteromeei, Cotingidw, Pipridse. BESAIODAGTYLI, Eurylsemidge. It will be seen that no attempt was made to separate the Normal Acromyodians into Families. Already, in The Ibis for 1874 (pp. 406- 416), Mr. Wallace had published a plan,- which, with two slight modifica- tions that there were manifestly improvements, he employed two years later in his great work on The Geographical Distribution of Animals, and this included a method of arranging the Families of this division. Being based, however, wholly on alar characters, it has of course a great simi- larity to the schemes of Prof. Cabanis and of Sundevall* and, though simpler than either of those, there is no need here to enter much into its details. The Birds which would fall under the category of Garrod's Acromyodi normales are grouped in three series : — A. "Typical or ^ It is right to observe that this scheme was not a little aided by a consideration of palatal characters, as well as regard to the disposition of some of the tendons of the wing-muscles. ^ Presenting some analogy to the work of Garrod and Forbes, though mainly based on external characters, is that carried on in regard to the feathering of Birds' wings, as quoted elsewhere (Remioes, p. 781, note), and deserving much attention. INTRODUCTION g^ Turdoid Passeres," having a wing witli ten primaries, tlie first of whicli is always more or less markedly reduced in size, and to tliis 21 Families are allotted ; B. "Tanagroid Passeres^' having a wing with nine primaries, the first of which is fully developed and usually very long, and contain- ing 10 Families; and C. " Sturnoid Passeres," having a vring -uith ten primaries, the first of which is " rudimentary," with only 4 Families. The remaining Families, 10 in number, which are not normally acromyodian are grouped as Series D. and called " Formicaroid Passei-es." In The Ibis for 1880 (pp. 340-350, 399-411) Mr. Sclater made a laudable attempt at a general arrangement of Birds,i trying to harmonize the views of ornithotomists with those taken by the ornithologists who only study the exterior ; but, as he explained, his scheme is really that of Huxley reversed,- with some slight modifications mostly consequent on the recent researches of Parker and of Garrod, and (here may be added) a few details derived from the author's own extensive knowledge of the Class. Adopting the two Subclasses Carinatse and Eatitx, he recognized 3 "Orders" as forming the latter and 23 the former — a number far exceeding any that had of late years met with the ap- proval of ornithologists. First of them comes the Passeres, of which Mr. Sclater would make four Suborders : — (1) the Acroviyodi normales of Garrod under the older name of Oscines, to the fiirther subdivision of Avhich we must immediately return ; (2) under Huxley's term Oligomyodi, all the Ha'iiloophonx, Heteromeri and Desmodactyli of Garrod, compre- hending 8 Families — Oxyrliamphidee,^ Tyrannidse, Pijjridse, Cotingidse, Phytotomid.se, Pittidse,^ Philepittidx and Eurylsejnidx ; * (3) Tracheophon^, containing the same groups as in the older scheme, but here combined into 3 Families only — Dendrocolaptidse, Formicariidse and Pteroptochidse ; ^ and (4) the Acromyodi ahiormales of Garrod, now elevated to the rank of a Suborder and unhappily called Pseudoscines. With regard to the Acromyodi normales or Oscines, Mr. Sclater takes what seems to be the only reasonable view, when he states that they " are all very closely related to one another, and, in reality, form little more than one groiip, equivalent to other so-called families of birds," going on to remark that as there are some 4700 known species of them "it is absolutely necessary to subdivide them," and finally proceeding to do this nearly on the method of Sundevall's Tentamen, merely changing the names and position of the groups in accordance with a plan of his own set forth in the Nomenckdor Avium Neotropicalium, which he and Mr. Salvin printed in 1873, making, as did Sundevall, two divisions (according as the hind part of the " tarsus " is plated or scaled), A. Laminiplantares and B. Bcutiplantares — but confining the latter to the Alaudidae alone, since the other Families forming Sundevall's Scutelliplantares are not Oscinine, nor ■^ An abstract of tMs was read to the Britisli Association at Swansea in the same year, and may be found in its Report (pp. 606-609). " A matter of no moment whatever, provided that the ascending or descending order be preserved throughout, and not intermixed as slovenly writers are wont. * Not recognized by Garrod. ^ To these ilr. Sclater has now ( Cat. B. Br. Mv.s. xiv. p. 2) added Forbes's Xenicid^. " Mr. Schater has since admitted {op. cit. xv. p. 2) the Conojwphagidce of Garrod {Proc. Zool. Soc. 1877, p. 452). g6 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS all even Passerine. The following taljle shews the result of a comparison of the two modes as regards the Laminiplantares, and may be found conveni- ent by the reader : — Mr. Sclater, 1880. Sundevall, 1872-73. 1. Deutirostres/ — practically equal to 1. Ciclalomorplias. 2. Latirostres,-^ ., 6. Chelidonomorphse. 3. Curvirostres, ,, 4. Certliiomorphse.^ 4. Tenuirostres, ,, 5. Cinnyrimorpliffi. 5. Conirostres, ,, 2. Conirostres. 6. Cultrirostres, ,, 3. Coliomorpliae. These six groups Mr. Sclater thinks may be separated without much difficulty, though on that point the proceedings of some later writers (a notable instance of which he himself cites) shew that doubt may still be entertained ; but he rightly remarks that, " when we come to attempt to subdivide them, there is room for endless varieties of opinion as to the nearest allies of many of the forms," and into further details he does not go. It will be perceived that, like so many of his predecessors, he accords the highest rank to the Dentirostres, which, as has before been hinted, seems to~be a mistaken view that must be considered in the sequel. Leaving the Passeres, ■ the next " Order " is Picarix, of which Mr. Sclater proposes to make six Suborders: — (1) Pici, with 2 Families; (2) Cypseli, with 3 Families,^ practically equal to the Macrochires of Nitzsch ; (3) Anisodactylx, with 12 Families — ■Goliidse, Alcedinidse, Bucero- tidse, Uidupidse, Irrisoridm, Meropidae, Momotidse, Todidae, Goraciidse, Lepto- somidx, Podargidss and SteatornitMdge ; (4) Heterodadylx, consisting only of the Trogons ; (5) Zygodadylse, with 5 Families, Galbulidee, Bucconidse, Bhamphastidse, Gapitonidee and Indicatoridee ; and (6) Goccyges, composed of the two Families Guculidee and Musophagidae. That all these may be most conveniently associated under the name Picariae seems likely enough, and the first two " Suborders " are probably natural groups, though possibly groups of different value. In regard to the rest comment is for the present deferred. The Psittaci, Striges and Accipitres, containing respectively the Parrots, Owls and diurnal Birds -of- Prey, form the next three "Orders" — the last being held to include 3 Families, Fcdconidse, Gathartidee and Serpentariidse (Secretary-bird), which is perhaps the best that can be done with them. We have then the Steganopodes to make the Sixth "Order," consisting of the 5 Families usually grouped together as by Brandt (supra, page 6S) and others, and these are followed naturally enough by the Herons under the name of Herodiones, to which the three Families Ardeidse, Giconiidse (Stork) and Plataleidse, (Spoonbill) are referred ; but the Flamingoes, under Nitzsch's title Odontoglossge, form a distinct " Order." The Ninth " Order " is now erected for the Palavicdese. (Screamer), \\'hich precede the Anseres — a group 1 These are not equivalent to Simdevall's gi'oups of the same names. 2 Mr. Sclater (p. 348) inadvertently states that no species of Sundevall's Cerfhio- morphfB is found in the New World, having omitted to notice that in the Tcntamen (pp. 46, 47) the genera Mniotilta (peculiar to America) as Avell as Ccrtliia and Sltta are therein placed. '^ Or 2 only, the position of the Gaprimidgidss being left undecided, but in 1883 (see next note) put here. INTRODUCTION gy that, disencumbered from both the last two, is eminently natural, and easily dealt with. A great break then occurs, and the new series is opened by the Eleventh " Order," Goluvibse, with 3 Families, Oarpo2Jhagid3e, Columhida} and Gouridee, " or perhaps a fourth," Didunculidx} — the Dodos beine; "held to belong to quite a separate section of the order." The Twelfth "Order" is formed by the Pterocletes [!] (Sand-Grouse); and then we have the very natural group Gallinse ranking as the Thirteenth. The next two are the Opistliocomi and Hemiiwdii for the Hoactzin and the Turnicidee (Hemipode) respectively, to which follow as Sixteenth and Seventeenth the Fulicarise and Alectorides — the former consisting of the Families Rallidx (Rail) and Heliornithidse (Finfoot), and the latter of what seems to be a very heterogeneous compound of 6 Families — Aramid^ (Limpkin), Uurypygidee (Sun-Bittern), Gruidse (Crane), Psophiidx (Trum- peter), Cariamidai (Seriema) and Otididse^ (Bustard). It is confessedly very puzzling to know how these varied types, or some of them at least, should be classed ; but the need for the establishment of this group, and especially the insertion in it of certain forms, is not explained by the author. Then we have " Orders " Eighteen and Nineteen, the Limicolae, with 6 Families, and Gavise, consisting only of Laridse- (Gull), M^hich taken in their simplest condition do not present much difficulty. The last are followed by Tuhinares (Petrels), and these by Pygo2)odes, to w^hich only 2 Families Golyrtibidx (Diver) and Alcidse (Auk) are allowed — the Grebes being included in the former. The Impennes (Penguin) form the Twenty-second, and Crypturi (Tinamou) complete the Carinate Sub- class. For the Ratitse only three "Orders" are allotted — Apteryges, Casuarii and Strutkiones. As a whole it is impossible not to speak well of the scheme thus sketched out, so far as materials for it existed ; and, in 1884, an attempt was made {Encycl. Brit. ed. 9, xviii. pp. 43-49) to indicate those points in recent Classifications which then seemed to have been established on a pretty sure footing, though therein the writer had no intention, any more than he now has, of inventing (as has sometimes been supposed) a new arrangement of Birds. He did, however, try to shew that some positions which had been taken up could not be maintained, and among other things that the " Subclass " Odontornithes, founded as above mentioned (page 87) by Prof. Marsh, was artificial, for, while Birds yet retained the teeth they had inherited from their Reptilian ancestors, two remarkable and, in the opinion of many, distinct groups of the Class had already made their appearance, which two groups persist at the present day in the Avcs Eatitse and Aves Garinatee- long ago recognized by Merrem. Fvirthermore, while the Ratite type (Hesperornis) presents the kind of teeth which indicate (in Reptiles at least) a low morphological rank, the Carinate type {Ichtliyornis) is furnished with teeth set in sockets and shewing a higher development. On the other hand this early Carinate type has vertebree whose comparatively simple, biconcave form is equally evidence of a rank unquestionably low ; but the saddle - shaped vertebrae of the ^ In the eightli edition of the List of Vertebrated Animals in the Zoological Gardens, which, being published in 1883, may be taken as expressing Mr. Sclater's later views, the first two Families only are recognized, the last two being placed nnder Columbiclse. 2 Wrongly spelt Otidse. DICTIONAR Y OF BIRDS contemporary Ratite type as surely testify to a more exalted position. The explanation of this complicated if not contradictory state of things seemed then out of reach ; but one, as will directly be shewn, has since been offered by Prof. Fiirbringer. Moreover, the uncertainty which then prevailed, even if it has now wholly ceased, among the best-informed ornithologists as to the respective origin of Ratitee, and Garinatm, was at that time considered with a decided leaning to the view that the last were evolved from the first. The labours of the distinguished zoologist just named have now shewn the strong probability, if one may not say the certainty, of that view being wrong and of the Ratite being a degraded type descended from the Carinate.^ Still further, it may here be remarked that there is now no need to presume (as was then presumed) the former existence of Batitse. with biconcave vertebrae, since all Birds had most likely acquired saddle-shaped vertebrse before any forms began to retro- grade in the direction of Ratitee, while the ancestors of the modern Garinatse possibly lost their teeth as their biconcave vertebrae were improving into the higher form.^ Seldom does it happen that in a professedly popular work any novelty is~shewn unless it be of a kind essentially unscientific ; but the Fourth Volume of the Standard Natural History, which treats of Birds and was published at Boston in Massachusetts in 1885, is a notable exception. Even if some of its originality may be said to lie in its eclecticism,^ no one will refuse Dr. Stejneger's labour a conspicuous place in a historical sketch of Systematic Ornithology. Though not sole author of the book, indeed his name does not appear on the title-page, he has admittedly written most of the descriptive portion,'^ while there is no question of the taxonomy being all his own and its basis is anatomical. The whole volume compares most favourably with anything of the kind that has appeared, whether before or since, and open as it may be on many points to criticism,^ all who have used it must regret that it is not better known in this country. Here, however, we have but its Classifica- tion to deal with ; and, considering the many new ideas and terms put •'■ It now seems to me curious that, having then suggested (to??i. cit. p. 44) that Apteryx and Dinornis were degraded descendants of earlier Ratitse, I did not perceive the possibility of those very Ratitee being degenerate forms. 2 Prof. Marsh {Ain. Joiirn. Sc. April 1879, and Odontornithes, pp. 180, 181) stated that in the third cervical vertebra of Ichthyor^iis " we catch nature in the act as it were " of modifying one form of vertebra into another, for this single vertebra in Ichthyornis is in vertical section " moderately convex, while transversely it is strongly concave ; thus presenting a near approach to the saddle-like articulation." He pro- ceeded to point out that this specialized feature occurs at the first bend of the neck, and, greatly facilitating motion in a vertical plane, is " mainly due originally to its predominance." The form of the vertebrte would accordingly seem to be as much correlated with the mobility of the neck as is the form of the sternum with the faculty of flight. ^ Cf. Gadow, Thier-reich, Vdgel, ii. p. 48. * His fellow-workers were Messrs. Barrows and Elliot, the former taking the Acclpitres, and the latter Opisthocoriii, Gallinie, Pterocletcs\V\, Columbw and Trochilidie, while Dr. J. S. Kiugsley, the editor of the whole series, supplied the account of the Psittaci. ^ Especially on matters of Nomenclature, a trifling but highly-contentious subject, which throughout the present work I have studiously tried to avoid. INTRODUCTION 99 forth, an abstract ^ of Dr. Stejneger's scheme, the peculiarities of spelling being observed, seems advisable : — £ ■^^ "Si— -^ g^ « o g' ^ S -g -^ g CO -§ •'S 1 1 1 - S se ^^^ s 1 IIMlft filli ;s^ •§ •'S :§ S o 1 § :s:Ss6-"s-l 1^ |4|S||| |.1|^ c 3 C3 •? o Ornithopappi. Pteropappi. Drommopappi. i. Stnithiones ii. yEpiornithes. iii. Apteryges. iv. Grypturi. Qastor7iithes, V. Ptilopteri. vi. Gecomorphse vii. Grdllse viii. Ghenomorphie ix. Herodii X. Steganopodes xi. Opisthocomi. xii. Gallime xiii. Pterocletes. xiv. Golumise (4). XV. Accipitres (4). xvi. Psittaci (8). xvii. Picariw xviii. Passeres s a, m Drom^o- gnathw Impennes Euornithes I. Saururie II. Odontotormm III. OdontoholcBS IV. Eu7'hipidurw ^ I have thouglit it needless to occupy space by adding the name of the Families, which in nearly every case will be readily supplied, though where there is more than one referred to any higher division, I have inserted the number. The Family-names are given by Mr. A. H. Evans (Zool. Rec. xxii. Aves, pp. 14-18), by Dr. Sharpe [Attempts to classify Birds, pp. 24-29) and Dr. Gadow {ut su^yrd, pp. 46-48). DICTIONAR Y OF BIRDS Even now ornithologists might easily invent or follow worse schemes than that of which the outline has just been given. It looks far more complicated at first sight than it will be found to be on closer inspection, and close inspection it thoroughly deserves ; while, granting the impossi- bility of forming a linear series, the result is remarkably successful. This is owing to the attention paid to anatomical facts, shewing to what good purpose Dr. Stejneger, in addition to his own investigations, has studied the works of ornithotomists, and also the good judgment he has, in most cases, exercised as to the respective value of characters, whether internal or external — and these last are not forgotten. Had he published his classification in a technical form, concisely stating the characters on which it was based, instead of leaving all to be collected by the reader as he goes, Dr. Stejneger would have simplified matters very much, and perhaps have saved some useless labour on the part of others ; but it will assuredly be counted to him for righteousness that in theory at least, if not always in practice, he has held to morphological principles so far as they had been made known. Unquestionably the most remarkable recent contribution to System- atic Ornithology is that of Prof. Furbringer, in the Second Volume of his magnificent Untersuchungen zur Mor-phologie und SystemMih der Vogel, published in 1888 as a jubilee work by the well-known 'Natura Artis Magistra' Society of Amsterdam. It is impossible to exaggerate either the importance or the amount of the labour bestowed on these researches, of which the systematic results are but a comparatively small part, though the part that here requires most notice, for they render doubtful much that had before been deemed fairly-well established, and put the Reptilian joedigree of Birds and the position of the Ratitse in a wholly new light, incidentally proving the latter to be derived from ancestors fully endowed with wings. This last position, however, does not upset Prof. Marsh's contention that the first Birds had not the faculty of flight. It only makes evident that between the volant forefathers of the modern Ratitx and the very first Birds, there intervened an indefinite but great number of forms of which few if any traces are known to us, and that the origin of Birds is far more remote than we had been inclined to suppose. Birds, considers Prof. Fiirbringer (op. cit. p. 1563), since they spring from Reptiles, must have begun with toothed forms of small or moderate size, with long tails and four Lizard-like feet, having distinct metacarpals and metatarsals, beside well-formed claws, while their bodies were clothed with a very primitive kind of down. These forms he terms Protoherp- ornithes — old Reptilian Birds ( Urkriechvdgel). To them succeeded forms wherein the down developed into feathers, and the fore and hind limbs differed in build — the former becoming organs of prehension, and the latter the chief instruments of progression. There was a Dinosaur- like transformation of the legs and pelvis, with by-and-by a coalescence of the metatarsals, enabling the creature to become bipedal. These were the Protortliornithes or Prot-Aptenornithca — the first Birds that stood erect, or the first flightless Birds — many of considerable size, but flightless, and they may have left their footprints (Ornithichnites, page 277) on Ti-iassic rocks, and to them may have belonged (p. 1518) Laoptcryx (page 280, note INTRODUCTION 1). Hitlierto all these ancient animals, wtetlier having four feet or two, moved on the ground or, at most, and this especially in the case of the smaller forms, climbed trees. Among those that possessed this habit, the befeathering (which as yet had, like the hair of Mammals, served only foi warmth) presumably entered upon a higher step, the feathers becom- ing larger on certain parts of the body, particularly on the fore limbs and tail, so as to begin to act as a parachute, and allow of a safe gliding descent from a height. By successive increase in stiffness and size of the feathers, and corresponding modification and strengthening of the skeleton and muscles, the possibility of incipient but real flight was afi'orded to these Birds, the Proto-Ptenornithes — the first flying Birds {Urflugvogel), of which, in all likelihood, there were many varied forms, though Archas- optenjx (page 278) is the single type known to us. The faculty of flight, thus acquired, went on imjjroving. The remiges grew stronger and stronger, and, in correlation therewith, the distal wing-bones (the meta- carpals coalescing) gained greater rigidity, and the muscles connected with them, as well as the processes giving origin and insertion thereto, increased in size. In proportion as the fore limbs specialized into highly- developed wings, and the pectoral arch approached the Carinate type, the original faculty of the former as grasping organs was lost. Simultaneously as the remiges acquired strength, the tail shortened and was consolidated, the posterior vertebrae becoming united as a pygostyle (page 753). Thus originated those forms which may be denominated Deutero-Ptenornitlies or Ewptenornithes — the higher or better Birds of Flight {hohere Flugvogel). This type was already established in the Cretaceous Ichthyornis (page 652), and includes the vast majority of existing Birds commonly grouped as Carinatse ; but these only in later times developed their various higher modi- fications, which were rendered possible by the saving of material and weight, — more elaborate vertebrae ; the loss of teeth ; the gain in pneumacity of the body — especially in larger forms ; the suitable configuration of parts of the skeleton, and the greater importance of smooth muscle com- pensating for the diminished performance of striped muscle (page 602). During the period in which the Protoptenornithes and Deuteropten- ornithes were differentiated, there came about, as almost everywhere in Nature, retrograde movement. All Birds did not reach the highest degree of faculty of flight. Many stopped, as it were, half way, when a retro- gression of the power already attained took place ; or, if the power were reached, it could not be maintained — an easy life and absence of rivalry inducing an increased bulk of the body, until the utmost exertion of muscular strength could no longer sustain it in the air. Thus when this retrograde development began, occasion was afforded for the dwind- ling away of the volant power, and hence arose the different types which are commonly grouped as Eatitse, and may be called Deuter-Aptenornithes, or secondary Flightless Birds {secunddr fluglos Vogel). Again, says the author, if the retrogression extended only to a limited degree, as in recent cases like the Impennes, Alca impennis, certain Rallidee, the Dididee, Stringops and others, in whose structure this or that Carinate character is very apparent, these form the Trit-Aptenornithes or Flightless Carinates {fluglose Carinaten). But in Nature no sharp boundary exists between the Deuter- and Trit- Aptenornithes ; Gnemiornis and still more likely Gastornis and Aptornis 102 DICTIONAR V OF BIRDS might stand midway. Future discoveries, wliicli one may in all prob- ability expect, will still more efface this artificial boundary (p. 1564).^ The great novelty of Prof. Fiirbringer's treatment of the Ratitse, is not merely denying their existence as a distinct Subclass, for that had been done before ^ ; but his demonstration, for it amounts to that, of their being the retrograde descendants of volant ancestors, and moreover his ojjinion that they diverged at different epochs, so that the several groups which now exist are not homogeneous but each had an independent pedigree. This not only carries to an extreme the views first enunciated by Huxley, who pointed out that each of the existing Eatite groups was equivalent in rank to what is commonly deemed an "Order" among Birds (though he himself refused them the title), but it also involves an acceptance of the doctrine of Isomorphism, to consider which would lead us quite beyond our present limits, and therefore must be here let alone.^ It should be said, however, that this conclusion seems to have been slowly and almost reluctantly adopted by Prof. Fiirbringer, who in the fairest way states the objections that may be taken to it, though finally over- riding them with the result given above.^ Among the great merits of this great work are the representations of a genealogical "tree" shewing the descent of Birds not only vertically, and that on two sides, but also horizontally at three different epochs. It is unfortunately impossible here to reproduce these designs, and as without their aid no correct impression of his Classification could be conveyed, it seems better to abstain from any attempt to set it forth imperfectly in a linear form,^ ^ The expectation expressed by Prof. Fiirbringer in this last sentence is a truism and need not alarm any true believer in Evolution, since as elsewhere observed (Geographical Distribution, page 344) it is obvious that if all creation, past and present, stood before us no lines of demarcation could be dra-wn. The taxonomer has to judge by the comparatively small number of forms left to us, and between them are gaps, sometimes (so to speak) narrow cracks at others wide chasms, to fill up which is often beyond the power of imagination, though we know that filled they once were. Those gaps form not only convenient iDut the sole means of marking otf groups of beings, whether we call them species or sub-kingdoms. Experience teaches us to expect that in time we.shall partially know how some of these gaps were filled. ^ It has been likened to Owen's treatment of them, but is really very different. Owen, having formerly recognized an Order Cursores (by no means equivalent to that of Illiger), in 1866 declared {Anat. Vertebr. ii. p. 12) it not to be natural, which is quite true if in it are placed the heterogeneous forms he then assigned to it — Notornis, Struthio, Didus, Apteryx, Dinornis and Palapteryx, which last three he said "bear affinity to the Megapodial family of Gallinse," while he considered that "the Ostrich bears the same relation to the Bustards " as Notornis to the Coots ! ^ This doctrine, like that of the Correlation of Growth, is one that may be made to account so easily for many difficulties, otherwise apparently insuperable, that one is inclined always to view its application with suspicion, and to be loth to invoke its aid except on the greatest emergency. •* Quite recently Prof. Milne-Edwards {Ann. Sc. Nat. ser. 7, ii. p. 134) declares against the homogeneity of the "Brevipennes," and consequently admits the isomor- phism of some New-Zealand and Mascarene types. •^ It is much to be regretted that while so many works of trifling importance are continually being reviewed in our scientific journals. Prof. Fiirbringer's lias obtained but little notice in this country. An excellent abstract by Dr. Gadow was published in Nature (xxxix. pp. 150-152, 177-181) for the 13th and 20th December 1888, and its republication in an accessible form would be most useful, since no translation of the original could be hoped for. A more condensed summary, with the author's own paradigm, was given by Mr. A. H. Evans [Zool. Rec. xxv. Avcs, pp. 14-16), while Dr. Sharpe (Attempts at Classi'f. B. pp. 39-43) has reproduced the original plates as well INTRODUCTION 103 and merely to copy Ms diagrammatic expression of the relationships between different groups taken in horizontal section across the tree's main branches, as shewn on the next page.^ While toiling at his gigantic task Prof. Fiirbringer was in frequent communication with his friend Dr. Gadow, at that time engaged in completing the Ornithology of what is known as BronvUs Thier-Reich. This harmonious intercourse natura;lly had an effect on the opinions of each. On the termination of the former's labours the latter, profiting of course by them, continued his own investigations in order to work out the systematic part of his subject, and they led to conclusions which, though for the most part agreeing with those of his predecessor, as might be expected when both were the results of morphological research, differed from them in several rather important particulars. In 1892 Dr. Gadow contributed to the Proceedings of the Zoological Society (pp. 229-256) a highly condensed summary of his views 'On the Classification of Birds,' which in the following year he elaborately set forth, with some slight modifications, in the Systematic portion of the work above named (pp. 61-282). This Classification is based on the examination, mostly autoptic, of a far greater number of characters than any that had pre- ceded it, and, moreover, they were chosen in a different way, discern- ment being exercised in sifting and weighing them, so as to determine, so far as possible, the relative value of each, according as that value may vary in different groups, and not to produce a mere mechanical "key" after the fashion become of late years so common. Whether the upshot of it all has been to establish a Natural Classification, one indicating the true descent and the real affinities of the several groups known, time alone will shew ; but that this latest attempt has been made according to the best method few will doubt. Dr. Gadow recognizes two Sub- as the paradigm, and the whole has been preyed upon by one of the most successful of modern plagiarists. ^ It is difficult to take as seriously as they were intended the two alternative methods simultaneously presented in 1890, by the late Mr. Seebohm {Classification of Birds. London : 8vo), while a somewhat modified arrangement of certain groups was offered in his Birds of the Japanese Empire, which appeared a few months later ; but hesitation on that score was removed by his publication in 1895 of a fourth scheme called a Sihpplement, though really subverting its predecessors. In each of these works the language of science is professed, but the author's natural inability to express himself with precision, or to appreciate the value of differences, is everywhere apparent, even when exercising his wonted receptivity of the work of others, and especially of Dr. Stejneger and Prof. Furbringer. Nevertheless the first of these works formed the basis of Dr. Sharpe's arrangement {Reviexu of Recent Attempts to Classify Birds, pp. 55-90) propounded in 1891 to the International Ornithological Congress held that year at Buda-Pest, and shortly after followed, with some slight alteration, in his Catalogue of the osteological specimens of Birds in the Museum of the Eoyal College of Surgeons of England. Dr. Sharpe, however, is not the only disciple of Mr. Seebohm, whose method commanded the admiration of Prof. Mivart in his handy volume [Birds : The Elements of Ornithology. London : [1892] p. 255), which is pronouuced by Mr. Headley [The Structure and Life of Birds. London : 1895, p. 390) to be " The best book for beginners." The year 1891 saw also the Nouvelle Classification propose'e pour les OiseoMX by Dr. Alphonse Dubois {Mem. Soc. Zool. cle la France, iv. pp. 96-116), grounded mainly on the work of Sundevall, though modified by Huxley's views. The author had the advantage of knowing Prof. Furbringer's scheme ; but hardly of appreciat- ing the morphological considerations on which it was based. The chief peculiarity of Dr. Dubois's plan is a revival of Bonaparte's notion as to the primacy of the Psittaci. 104 DICTIONAR Y OF BIRDS cS o -c ^ s -2 eg O &, O H S o 1-3 o — !>a cc .o w 1 o o a5 P-( s O ._o o ."3 <1 o ^ nj o O o o 32 w W c2 H 1— 1 ■^ ^ r^ « "S O O rr-3 >J 3 3 P5 > 0 u IcMliyornithes. GolymMformes : — Colymbi, Podicipedes. SpJienisciformes : — Sphenisci. Proceilariiformes : — Procellarife. Ciconiiformes : — Stegauopodes (5) ; Ardeae (2) ; CiconiEe (2) ; Phoeni- copteri (2). Anseriformes : — Palamedese ; Anseres. Falconiformes : — Cathartse ; Accipitres (4). Tinami. Mesites ; Turnices (2) ; Galli (3) ; Opisthocomi. (7). ■Limicolffi (6) ; Lari (2) ; Pterocles ; ColumbEe (2). Cuculi (4) ; Psittaci (6). Coraciffi (9) ; Striges (2) ; Caprimulgi (3) ; Cypseli (2) ; Colli ; Trogones ; Plci (7). PasseriforTties : — P. anlsomyodl : — Subclamatores ; Clamatores (5). P. dlacromyodi : — Suboscines (2) ; Osclnes (?). [The number suffixed to the name of the Order or Suborder indicates the number of Families and Subfamilies recognized, when there is more than one. ] Dr. Gadow's Phylogeny arranged in ordinary fashion, for comparison with those used before, would be thus — Neornithes % TinaTmforines : — ' ,2 o Galliformes : — i3 2 1 Ch'uif(rnnes : . . . ^^ Charadriiformes :- Cuculifonnes : — Coraciiformes : — ri ^3 1-1 S "^ -d 0 0 Ratltte. . . Alectoromorphse. I Coraclomorphse. Pelargomorphse + ColymbomorphEe...Odontolcse From the preceding pages, recounting the efforts of many system- makers — good, bad and indifferent — it will have been seen what a very great number and variety of characters need to be had in remem- brance while planning any scheme that will at all adequately repre- sent the resiilts of the knowledge hitherto attained, and the best lesson to be learnt from them is that our present knowledge goes io6 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS but a very little way in comparison Avith what we, or our successors, may hope to reach in years to come. Still we may feel pretty confident that we are on the right track, and, moreover, that here and there we can plant our feet on firm ground, however uncertain, not to say treacherous, may be the spaces that intervene. Now that geographical exploration has left so small a portion of the earth's surface unvisited, we cannot reasonably look for the encountering of new forms of extant ornithic life that, by revealing hitherto unknown stepping stones, will quicken our course or effectively point out our path. Indeed, as a matter of fact, the two most important and singular types of existing Birds — Baleeniceps and Rhinochetus — that in the latter half of this century rewarded the exertions of travelling naturalists, have proved rather sources of per- plexity than founts of inspiration. Should fortune favour ornithologists in the discovery of fossil remains, they will unquestionably form the surest guide to our faltering steps ; but experience forbids us to expect much aid from this quarter, warmly as we may wish for it, and the pleasure of any discovery of the kind would be enhanced equally by its rarity as by its intrinsic worth. Even the startling revelation of the group named Stereornithes has as yet done little except to add to our knowledge a number of ancient types.^ However, it is now a well-accepted maxim in Zoology that immature forms of the present repeat mature forms of the past, and that, where Palaeontology fails to instruct us, Embryology may be trusted to no small extent to supply the deficiency. Unhappily the enibryology of Birds has been till latel}' very insufficiently studied. We had indeed embryological memoirs of a high value, but almost all were of a monographic character, and were only oases in a desert of ignorance. The same may be said of Morj)hology, so that a really connected and continuous series of investigations, such as was instituted by Prof. Fiirbringer, marked a new starting-point ; for it seems clear that hence- forth schemes for the Classification of Birds, as of other groups, will be divided into those which are based on Morphology, and those which are not — the latter falling year by year into disrepute. At the same time, with the greatest respect to Morphologists, it must be held that they, like other men, are bound by the rules of evidence and the exercise of common sense. Moreover, as the discrepancies between the schemes of different Morphologists shew, individual opinion will have to be reckoned with for some time to come. Birds are animals so similar to Eeptiles in all the most essential features of their organization that they may be said to be merely an extremely modified and aberrant Eeptilian type. These are almost the very words of Huxley in 1866,^ and there are now but few zoologists to dissent from his statement, which by another man of science has been expressed in a phrase even more pithy — " Birds are only glorified Reptiles." It is not intended here to enter upon their points of re- semblance and differences. These may be found summarized with more ^ Cy. Andrews, Jiep. Brit. Association {lps\\'ich Meeting) 1895, pp. 714, 715 ; and Ibis, 1896, pp. 1-12. ^ Lectures on the Elements of Comparative Anatomy p. 69 ; see also Carus, JIandbuch der Zoologie, i. p. 192» INTRODUCTION loy or less accuracy in any text-book of zoology/ and it is enough to remark that by the naturalist just named Birds and Reptiles have been brigaded together under the name of Sauropsida as forming one of the three primary divisions of the Vertebrata — the other two being Ichthyopsida and Mammalia. Yet Birds have a right to be considered a Class, and as a Class they have become so wholly differentiated from every other group of the Animal Kingdom that, among recent and even the comparatively few fossil forms known to us, there is not one about the assignation of which any doubt ought now to exist, though some naturalists have refused a place among Aves to Arcliazopteryx, of which, as elsewhere stated (pages 278-280), the remains of only two individuals — most probably belouging to as many distinct forms ^ — have been discovered. Yet one of them was referred, without much hesitation, by Vogt to the Class Reptilia on grounds which &eem to be mistaken, since it was evidently in great part if not entirely clothed with feathers,^ and scarcely any one now doubts that its Bird-like characters predominate over those which are obviously Reptilian, while most authorities leave the genus as the sole representative as yet known of the Subclass SAURURiE, established for its reception by Prof. Hackel. The great use of the discovery of Archeeopiteryx to naturalists in general was the convincing testimony it afforded as to what is well called "the imperfection of the Geological Record." To ornithologists in particular its chief attraction is the evidence it furnishes in proof of the evolution of Birds from Reptiles ; though, as to the group of the latter from which the former may have sprung, it tells us little that is not negative. It throws, for instance, the Pterodactyls * — so often imagined to be nearly related to Birds, if not to be their direct ancestors — completely out of the line of descent. Next to this its principal ^ The various schemes for classifying Birds set forth by the authors of general text-books of Zoology do not call for any particular review here, as almost without exception they are so dra^vn up as to be rather of the nature of a compromise than of a harmony. The best and most notable is that by Prof. Carus in 1868 {torn, cit. i. pp. 191-368) ; but it is of course now antiquated. Among the worst schemes is that by Prof. Glaus in 1882 (Grundzilge der Zoologie, ii. pp. 318-388) ; but Dr. Pv. Hertwig's Lehrbuch der Zoologie (Jena : 1892, pp. 538-544) is quite as bad. Of most other similar text-books that have come under my notice, the less said the better. ^ See Prof. Seeley's remarks on the differences between the two specimens ( Geol. 2Iag. 1881, p. 454). ^ Vogt laid much stress on the absence of feathers from certain parts of the body of the second example of Archseopteryx now, thanks to Dr. Werner Siemens, in the museum of Berlin. But Vogt himself shewed that the parts of the body devoid of feathers are also devoid of skin. Now it is well known that among most existing Birds the ordinary " contour-feathers " have their origin no deeper than the skin, and thus if that decayed and were washed away the feathers growing upon it would equally be lost. This has evidently happened (to judge from photographs) to the Berlin specimen just as to that which is in London. In each case, as Owen rightly suggested of the latter, the remains exactly call to mind the very familiar relics of Birds found on a seashore, exposed perhaps for weeks or even months to the wash of the tides so as to lose all but the deeply-seated feathers, and finally to be embedded in the soft soil. Vogt's paper is in the Revue Scientifique, ser. 2, ix. p. 241, and an English translation of it in The Ibis for 1880, p. 434. ■* In 1866 Owen (^4?iato??iy of Vertebrates, ii. p. 13) maintained that "Derivatively the class of Birds is most closely connected with the Pterosaurian order," i.e. the Pterodactyls ; and the view is probably still held by many persons. io8 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS advantage is to reveal tlie existence, at so early an epocli, of Birds with some portion of their structure as higlily organized as the highest of the present day, a fact witnessed by its foot, which, so far as can be judged by its petrified relics, might well be that of a modern Crow. The fossil remains of most other Birds are too imperfect to help the systematist much ; but the grand discoveries of Prof. Marsh, spoken of above, afford further hints as to the taxonomy of the Class, and their bearing deserves the closest consideration. And now to review as briefly as possible the present position of the taxonomy of Birds. It is allowed by almost all that Archeeopteryx and its allies, with some of which we may reasonably hope time will make us acquainted, must stand alone whether by the name of SaurursR or Archseornithes. For the rest we may, with Prof. Furbringer, revive Prof. Hackel's designation of Ornithurm, or adopt the Neornithes of Dr. Gadow ; but the next steps of the latter cannot be followed without misgivings. We should be content to wait further discoveries before assigning a definite place to very many fossil forms of which our knowledge is as fragmentary as are the specimens on which it is based. It appears impossible yet to correlate the Stereornithes, Diatryma^ Gastornis and the rest ^ with recent forms, some of which though extinct essentially resembled many that now exist, and confusion can only arise from any attempt to do so. Perhaps it would be better if these last could be spoken of as constituting a separate division, for which Dr. Stejneger has somewhat unhappily appropriated Dr. Gill's name Eurhipidurai (page 99) ; but this division would have to be immediately subdivided into Garinatse and Puditse, for, fully admitting that Prof. Fiirbringer has shewn the latter to be degenerate descendants of the former (jsage 101), it seems impossible not to recognize each as a distinct group. His argument in favour of the multiple origin of the Ratitae, is hardly convincing. We can well believe that the examples he cites of Didus, Stringops, Gnemiomis and other modern flightless Birds are highly instructive as to the way in which the Eatitaz have been brought into their present condition ; but the characters possessed by all of them in common, as first adduced by Huxley, and to those characters others have been added by Dr. Gadow, point indubitably to a single or common descent. Seeing that we have no knowledge of the presumed Carinate ancestors of the Ratitx, it might be thought an open question which of the two , existing branches should be first considered ; but it is evident that those ancestors, being the collaterals of the ancestors of the modern Garinatse, ^ While tliese pages are under revision for the press, a renewed investigation of the famous South-American fossils, most of which are now in the British Museum, more than justifies the view taken when I wrote the above. The results arrived at by Mr. Andrews and Dr. Gadow, as briefly announced by the latter {Ibis, 1896, pp. 586, 587) are that Stereornithes are abolished as a taxonomic group. Phororhacos, of which Siereornis seems to be a synonym, is declared to belong to the " Gruiformes," and I'elecyornis and Liornis are likely to stand near it. Dryornis appears to belong to the " Falconiformes," though Mesemhryornis is perhaps a forerunner of the Rhcidm, and therefore probably Ratite. More important is the fact that the fossils are not even Upper Oligocene, but Miocene, and none of the forms has any relation to Gastornis. Recent excavation of the matrix, as Mr. Andrews has been so good as to shew me, proves that Phororhacos had an ossified interorbital septum, whicli had before been thought to be wanting (page 905). INTRODUCTION log must have been morpliologically inferior to tliese descendants, which on evolutionary principles have gone on improving, while the Katite branch retrograded. That this last branch also may have improved and under- gone specialization is true, but not to the point, for it can hardly have improved iip to the level at which was the parting of the ways, and thus we are quite justified in continuing to regard the Ratitae as the lower branch, and in beginning with them. They were shewn beyond doubt by Huxley to form five separate groups, which we shall here, as before,^ dignify by the name of Orders, adding to them a sixth, though little has as yet been made known of its characteristics. Of this, which contains the great extinct Birds of Madagascar, he did not take cognizance, as it is here necessary to do. In the absence of any certain means of arranging all these orders according to their affinities, it will be best to place their names alphabetically thus — ^PYORNiTHBS. Fam. ^pym-nitMdai (Roc). Apteryges. Fam. Apterygidx (Kiwi). lir&iANES. Probably two Families ^ — Dinornithidse (Moa). Megistanes. Fam. i. Casuariidx (Cassowary) ; Fam. ii. Bromseidse (Emeu). 2 Rhe^e. ¥9,1x1. Bheidse (Rhea). Strtjthiones. Fam. Struthionidse (Ostrich). Some systematists think there can be little question of the Struthiones being the most specialized and therefore probably the highest type of these Orders. Nevertheless the formation of the bill in the Apteryges is quite unique in the whole Class, and indicates therefore an extraordinary amount of specialization. Their functionless wings, however, point to their being a degraded form, though in this matter they are not much worse than the Megistanes,^ and are far above the Immanes — some of which at least appear to have been absolutely wingless, and were thus the only members of the Class possessing but a single pair of limbs. Turning then to the Garinatm, their subdivision into Orders is attended with a considerable amount of difficulty ; and still greater difficulty is presented if we make any attempt to arrange these Orders so as in some way or other to shew their respective relations — in other words, their genealogy. In regard to the first of these tasks, a few groups can no doubt be at once separated without fear of going wrong. For instance, the Grypturi or Tinamous, the Impennes or Penguins, the Striges or Owls, the Psittaci or Parrots, and the Passeres, or at least the Oscines, seem to stand as groups each quite by itself, and, since none of them contains any ^ See Ann. Nat. Hist. ser. 4, xx. pp. 499, 500. It must, however, be borne in mind that what here is meant by au " Order " of Ams is a very different thing from an "Order" oi Reptilia. ^ On this see Prof. T. Jeffery Parker's most instructive paper {Trails. Zool. Soc. xiii. pp. 373-431, pis. Ivi.-lxii.), in which, though admitting only a single Family, he recognizes three Subfamilies — Dinornithinse., Anomalopteryginse and Emeinse. ^ Since this was in type Dr. Stirling has announced [Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Austral. XX. pp. 171-190) that fossil remains of a gigantic bird, Genyornis, found at Calla- bonna in South Australia, prove it to have been allied to the Emeus, in which case a third Family of Megistanes will probably be required. * Nor, possibly, than the jEpyornithes (cf. Andrews, Ibis, 1896, pp. 376-389, pis. viii. ix.). DICTIONARY OF BIRDS hangers-on about the character of which there can any longer be room to hesitate, there can be little risk in setting them apart. Next comes a category of groups in which differentiation appears not to have been carried so far, and, though there may be as little doubt as to the associa- tion in one Order of the greater number of forms commonly assigned to each, yet there are in every case more or fewer outliers that do not well harmonize with the rest. Here we have such groups as those called Pygojjodes, Gavise, Limicolse, GaUinBe, Cohimbse, Anseres, Herodiones, Steganopodes and Accipitres. Finally it has been sought to establish two groups of types presenting characteristics so diverse as to defy almost any definition, and, if it were not almost nonsense to say so, agreeing in little more than in the differences. These two groups are those known as Picarise and Aledorides ; but, while the majority of Families or genera usually referred to the former plainly have some features in common, the few Families or genera that have been clubbed together in the latter make an assemblage that is quite artificial, though it may be freely owned that with our present knowledge it is impossible to determine the natural alliances.of all of them.^ That our knowledge is also too imperfect to enable systematists successfully to compose a phylogeny of Carinate Birds, and draw out their pedigree, ought to be sufficiently evident. We can point to some forms which seem to be collaterally ancestral, and among them perhaps some of those which have been referred to the group "Aledorides" just mentioned ; and, from a consideration of their Geographical Distribution and especially Isolation, it will be obvious that they are the remnants of a very ancient and more generalized stock which in various parts of the world have become more or less specialized. The very case of the New- Caledonian Rliinoclietus (Kagu), combining features which occasionally recall the Eunjinjga (Sun-Bittern), and again present an unmistakable likeness to the Limicolse or the Eallidee, shews that it is Avithout any very near relation on the earth, and, if convenience permitted, would almost justify us in placing it in a group apart from any other, though possessing some characteristics in common with several. If we trust to the results at which Huxley arrived, there can be little doubt as to the propriety of beginning the Carinate Subclass with his Dromeeognathx, the Gryjpturi of Illiger and others, or Tinamous, for their resemblance to the Ratitse is not to be disputed ; though it must be borne in mind that their mode of development is not known, and that this may, when made out, seriously modify their position ; but of the sufficient standing of the Grypturi as an Order there can hardly be a question.^ ^ It should have been stated (page 9) that this heterogeneous assemblage called an "Order" by Temminck, was adapted from Illiger's Family of the same name founded in 1811, and then including in addition Gereopsis ; biit in neither group was there a single Cock-like bird. The Alectrides of Dumeril in 1806 consisted of the Bustards and Gallinse,. ^ We have seen that Huxley would derive all other existing Carinate Birds from the Drommognathie ; but of course it must be understood in this, as in every otlier similar case, that it is not thereby implied that the modern representatives of llie Dronueoguathous type (namely, the Tinamous) stand in the line of ancestry. INTRODUCTION Under the name Imjmmes we have a group of Birds, the Penguins, smaller even than the last, and one over which until lately systematists have been sadly at fault ; for, though we as yet know little definite as to their embryology, no one, free from bias, can examine any member of the group, either externally or internally, without perceiving how completely different it is from any others of the Carinate division. There is per- haps scarcely a feather or a bone which is not diagnostic, and nearly every character hitherto observed points to a low morjDhological rank. The title of an Order can scarcely be refused to the Impennes. The group known as Pygo'podes has been often asserted to be closely akin to the Imioennes, and we have seen that Brandt combined the two under the name of Urinatores, but of their essential difference there can now be no doubt, and indeed it is hard to look upon Pygopodes as a natural group, so many are the differences between the PodicipedAdsi. or Grebes and Colymlidse.^ or Divers, though recent morphologists agree to unite them, Avhile the afiinity of the Divers to the Auks seems to be still more uncertain, and there appears to be ground for considering the Alcidse to be much modified relatives of the Laridee. These are points deserving of stiR more attention on the part of embryologists than they have hitherto received. Under the improperly applied name of Gavix the Gulls and their close allies form a very natural section, but it probably hardly merits the rank of an Order more than the Pygopodes, for its relations to the large and somewhat multiform though very natural grouj) Limicolse have to be taken into consideration.^ The Limicoline genera Dromas and Ghionis have many points of resemblance to the Laridee ; and on the whole the j^i'oper inference would seem to be that the Limicolse, or something very like them, form the parent-stock whence have descended the Gavise, from which or from their ancestral forms the Alcidee have proceeded as a degenerate branch. If this hypothesis be correct, the association of these three groups would constitute an Order, of which the highest Family would perhaps be Otididse, the Bustards, associated with the foregoing by Prof. Flirbringer, but regarded by Dr. Gadow as allied to Cranes, Gruidse, and until further research shews which view can be maintained the matter must remain in doubt. On the other hand the Petrels, which form the group Tuhinares, seem for several reasons to be perfectly distinct from the Gulls and their allies, and may be taken to rank as an Order. Considerable doubt had long been expressed as to the existence of an " Order " Aledorides, and it has just been stated that no one can now regard it as a natural group. One of the Families included in it by its founder is Gariamidse, (Seriema), the true place of which has been a puzzle to many systematizers. There is nothing, however, here to add to ^ American ornitliologists have lately used this term for the Geebbs, to the great disturbance of nomenclature. It is apparently from the ancestors of the ColymUdse, before thej' lost their teeth, that Hesperornis branched off as a degenerate, bulky and flightless form. - The late Prof. Parker long ago observed [Trans. Zool. Soc. v. p. 150) that characters exhibited by Gulls when young, but lost by them when adult, are found in certain Plovers at all ages, and hence it would appear that the "G'aria^" are but more advanced LimicoliB. DICTIONARY OF BIRDS what is elsewhere said in tliis book (pages 828, 829). It is doubtless a generalized form,^ the survival of a very ancient type, whence several groups may have sprung ; and, whenever the secret it has to tell shall be revealed, a considerable step in the phylogeny of Birds ought to follow. Allusion has also been made to the peculiarities of two other forms placed with the last among the Aledorides — Eurypyga and Rhino- chetus — each being the sole type of a separate Family. It seems that they might be brought with the Gruidx, Psophiidae (Trumpeter), and Aramida. (Limpkin) into a group or Suborder Grues, — -•which, with the Fulicarise, ^ of Nitzsch and Mr. Sclater as another Suborder, would constitute an Order that might continue to bear the old Linnasan name Grallse. It must be borne in mind, however, that some members of both these Sub- orders exhibit many points of resemblance to certain other forms that it is at present necessary to place in different groups — thus some EallidsR to the Gallinse, G-rus to Ofis, and so forth ; and it is as yet doubtful whether further investigation may not shew the resemblance to be one of affinity, and therefore of taxonomic value, instead of mere analogy, and therefore of no worth in that respect. We have next to deal with a group nearly as complicated. The true Gallinss are indeed as well marked a section as any to be found ; but round and near them cluster some forms very troublesome to allocate. The strange OpistJiocomus (Hoactzin) is one of these, and what seems to be in some degree its arrested development makes its position almost unique.^ It must for the present at least stand alone, the sole occu.pant of a single Order. Then there are the Hemipodes, which have been raised to equal rank by Huxley as Turnicomorplix ; but, though no doubt the osteological differences between them and the normal Gallinee, pointed out by him as well as by the late Prof. Parker, are great, they do not seem to be more essential than are found in different members of some other Orders, nor to offer an insuperable objection to their being classed under the designation Gallinee. If this be so there will be no necessity for removing them from that Order, which may then be portioned into three Suborders — Hemipodii standing somewhat apart, and Alectoropodes and Peristeropodes, which are more nearly allied — the latter comprehending the Alegapodiidse (Megapodes) and Gracidee, (Curassows), and the former consisting of the normal Gallinx, of which it is difficult to justify the recognition of more than a single Family, though in that two types of structure are discernible. The Family of Sand- Grouse, Pteroclidse, is perhaps one of the most instructive in the whole range of Ornithology. In Huxley's words {Proc. Zool. Soc. 1868, p. 303), they are " completely intermediate between ^ Gariama is the oldest name for the genus, but being a word of ' ' barbarous " origin it was set aside by Illiger and the purists in favour of Dicholoplms, under which name it is several times mentioned in the present work {cf. Index, page 1066). 2 This group would contain three families — Rallidie, Heliornithidw (the FiN- FOOTS of Eastern India, Africa and South America) and the Mesitidas of Madagascar — for which an at least approximate place has been found by M. A. Milne-Edwards {Ann. ,Sc. Nat. ser. 6, vii. No. 6). " Mesites, just mentioned, presents a case which may, however, be very similar. INTRODUCTION J13 the Alectoromorphie [Galli7ice] and the Peristeromorphse IGolumhse]. They cannot be included within either of these groups without destroying its definition, while they are perfectly definable themselves." Hence he would make them an independent group of equal value with the other two. Both Prof. Fiirbringer and Dr. Gadow consider the Pigeon- alliance the strongest, and indeed the general resemblance of most parts of the osteology of the two groups, so well shewn by M. Milne-Edwards, combined with the Pigeon-like pterylosis of the Sand-Grouse, leaves no room for doubt ; but the many important points in which they differ from the more normal Pigeons, especially in the matter of their j^oung •being clothed with down, and their coloured and speckled eggs,^ must be freely admitted. Young Sand-Grouse are not only " Dasypsedes " but even " Prsecoces " or Nidifugie, at birth, while of course every one knows the helpless condition of " Pipers " — that is, Pigeons newly-hatched from their white eggs. Thus the opposite condition of the young of these two admittedly very near grotips inflicts a severe blow on the so-called " physiological " method of dividing Birds before mentioned (page 7^), and renders the Pteroclidx so instructive a form. The Golumhx considered in the wide sense suggested, possessed another and degenerate subdivision in the Dodo and its kindred, though the extirpation of those strange and monstrous forms will most likely leave their precise relations a matter of some doubt ; while the third and last subdivision, the true Columbse, is much more homogeneous, and can hardly be said to contain more' than two Families, Golumbidge and Didunculidse — the latter consisting of a single species (the absurdly -named "Dodlet"), and having no direct connexion with the Dididx,^ though possibly it may "be found that the Papuan genus, Otidiphafs presents a form linking it with the GolumhidsR. The Gallinse would seem to hold a somewhat central position among existing members of the Carinate division,^ whence many groups diverge, and one of them, the Opisthocomi or Heteromorpliaz of Huxley, indicates, he hinted, the existence of an old line of descent, now almost obliterated, in the direction of the Musophagidee and thence, it has been inferred, to the Goccygomorphee of the same authority. But these " Coccygomorphs " would also ajDpear to reach a higher rank than some other groups that we have to notice, and therefore, leaving the first, we must attempt to trace the fortunes of a more remote and less exalted line. It is impossible with our present knowledge to thread the maze in which the taxouomer now finds himself. The Pelargomorpliee of Huxley will be seen to differ much from Dr. Gadow's group of the same name ; and, though it has been shewn that " Desmognathism " must be aban- doned as a bond of union, just as " Schizognathism " has to be relinquished as a broken alliance, the difficulty of finding a place for the Anseres seems as hard as ever. That ancient form, Palamedea (Screamer), which is •^ This fact tells in favour of the views of those who hold the Sand-Grouse to be allied to the Plovers ; but the eggs of the Pigeons tell as strongly the other way, as do the young. 2 Phil. Trans. 1867, p. 349. 3 Of. Parker [Phil. Trans. 1850, p. 755). 114 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS doubtless riglitly attaclied to them does not help us, though perhajDs the Flamingos may. From fossil remains we know that they are not of yesterday ; and both to Huxley and to Dr. Gadow they seem intermediate between the Geese and the Storks and Herons. These last may well be considered to be akin to the Steganopodes, which in their turn indi- cate some relation to the Accipitres. "Whatever may be the alliances of the genealogy of the Accipitres, the Diurnal Birds-of-Prey, their main body must stand alone, hardly divisible into more than two principal groups — (1) containing the Sarcorhampliidee, or the Vultures of the New "World (page 1016), and (2) all the rest, though no doubt the latter may be easily subdivided into two Families, VuUuridse and Falconidae, and the last into many smaller sections, as has commonly been done ; but then we have the outliers left. The African Serpentariide& (Secretary-bird), though now represented only by a single species,^ are fully allowed to form a type equivalent to the true Accipitres composing the main body, and in it we may possibly see a trace of the link connecting the Accipitres with the HeriodAones. It was so long the custom to place the Owls next to the Diurnal Birds- of-Prey that any attempt to remove them from that position could not fail to incur criticism. Yet it is now admitted by almost every investigator that when we disregard their carnivorous habits, and certain modifications which may possibly be thereby induced, we find almost nothing of value to indicate relationship between the two groups. That the Striges stand quite independently of the Accipitres as above limited can hardly be doubted, and, while the Psittaci (Parrot) form a very distinct group, and may on some grounds appear to be the nearest allies of the Accipitres, the nearest relations of the Owls must be looked for in the multifarious group Picari^. Here we have the singular Steatornis (Guacharo), which, long confounded with the Caprimidgidx (Nightjar), has at last been recognized as an independent form, and it may possibly have branched off from a common ancestor with the Owls. The Nightjars may have done the like,^ for there is really not much to ally them to the Gypseli (Swift) and Trochili (Humming - bird), the Macrocliires proper, as has often been recommended. However, it should not be supposed that the place of the Striges is under the Picarise ; and the last are already a sufficiently heterogeneous assemblage. Whether the Pici (Woodpecker) should be separated from the rest is a matter on which Prof. Fiirbringer and Dr. Gadow are at variance. That they constitute a very natural and easily defined group is indisputable ; more than that, they are perhaps the most differentiated group of all those that are retained in the " Order " Picariee ; but it does not seem advisable at present to deliver them from that chaos when so many other groups have to be left in it. ^ It was long suspected that that the genus Polyioroides' of South Africa and Madagascar, from its general resemblance in plumage and outward form, might come into this group, but that idea has now been fully dispelled by M. A. Milne-Edwards in M. Grandidier's magnificent Oiseaux de Madagascar (i. pp. 50-66). ^ The great resemblance in coloration between Nightjars and Owls is of course obvious, so obvious indeed as to make one suspicious of their being akin ; but in reality the existence of the likeness is no bar to the ailiuity of the groups ; it merely has to be wholly disregarded. INTRODUCTION ii^ Lastly we arrive at tlie Passeres, and here, as already mentioned, the researches of Garrod and Forbes prove to be of immense service. It was of course not to be supposed that they had exhausted the subject even as regards their Mesomyodi, while their Acromyodi were left almost untouched so far as concerns details of arrangement ; but later investigations have produced a much more manageable scheme, and so far as it is goes Dr. Gadow seems to have good reason for the groups he has made, even though exception be taken to part of his nomenclature. Thus we reach the true Oscines, the last and highest groiip of Birds, and one which, as before hinted, it is very hard to subdivide. Some two or three natural, because well-differentiated, Families are to be found in it — such, for instance, as the Hirundinidie (Swallow), which have no near relations ; the A laudidse (Lark), that can be unfailingly distinguished at a glance by their scutellated planta, as has been before mentioned ; or the MeUphagidx (Honey-eater), with their curiously constructed tongue. But the great mass, comprehending incomparably the greatest number of genera and species of Birds, defies any sure means of separation. Here and there a good many individual genera may be picked out capable of the most accurate definition ; but genera like these are in the minority, and most of the remainder present several apparent alliances, from which we are at a loss to choose that which is nearest. Four of the six groups of Mr. Sclater's " Laminiplantar " Oscines seem to pass almost imperceptibly into one another. We may take examples in which what we may call the Thrush-form, the Tree-creeper-form, the Finch-form, or the Crow-form is pushed to the most extreme point of differentiation, but we shall find that between the outposts thus established there exists a regular chain of intermediate stations so intimately connected that no precise lines of demarcation can be drawn cutting off one from the other. Still one thing is possible. Hard though it be to find definitions for the several groups of Oscines, whether we make them more or fewer, it is by no means so hard, if we go the right way to work, to determine which of them is the highest, and, possibly, which of them is the lowest. It has already been shewn (page 72) how, by a woeful want of the logical appre- hension of facts, the Turdidse came to be accounted the highest, ancl the position accorded to them has been generally acquiesced in by those who have followed in the footsteps of Keyserling and Blasius, of Prof. Cabanis and of Sundevall. Now the order thus prescribed seems to be almost the very reverse of that which the doctrine of Evolution requires, and, so far from the Turdidse, being at the head of the Oscines, they are among its lower members. There is no doubt whatever as to the intimate relation- ship of the Thrushes (Turdidse) to the Chats {Saxicolinee), for that is admitted by nearly every systematizer. Now most authorities on classifica- tion are agreed in associating with the latter group the Birds of the Australian genus Petrceca and its allies (Wheatear, pp. 1035, 1036) — the so-called " Robins " of the English-speaking part of the great southern communities. But it so happens that, from the inferior type of the osteo- logical characters of this very group of Birds, the late Prof. Parker called them {Trans. Zool. Soc. v. p-. 152) " Struthious Warblers." Now if the Petrceca-gTou-p be, as most allow, allied to the Saxicolinee, they must also ii6 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS be allied, only rather more remotely, to the Turdidse, — for Thrushes and Chats are inseparable, and therefore this connexion must drag down the Thrushes in the scale. Let it be granted that the more highly-developed Thrushes have got rid of the low " Struthious " features which characterize their Australian relatives, the unbroken series of connecting forms chains them to the inferior position, and of itself disqualifies them from the rank so fallaciously assigned to them. Nor does this consideration stand alone. By submitting the Thrushes and allied groups of Chats and Warblers to other tests we may try still more completely their claim to the position to which they have been advanced. Without attaching too much importance to the systematic value which the characters of the nervous system afi'ord, there can be little doubt that, throughout the Animal Kingdom, where the nervous system is sufiiciently develojaed to produce a brain, the creatures possessing one are considerably superior to those which have none. Consequently we may reasonably infer that those which are the best furnished with a brain are superior to those which are less well endowed in that respect, and that this inference is reasonable is in accordance with the experience of every Phj^siologist, Comparative Anatomist and Palaeontologist, who are agreed that, within limits, the proportion which the brain bears to the spinal marrow in a Vertebrate is a measure of that animal's morphological condition. These preliminaries being beyond contradiction, it is clear that, if we had a series of accurate weights and measurements of Birds' brains, it would go far to help us in deciding many cases of disputed precedency, and especially such a case as we now have under discussion. To the dispraise of Ornithoto- mists this subject has never been properly investigated, and of late years seems to have been wholly neglected. The lists given by Tiedemann {Anat. und Naturgesch. der Vogel, i. pp. 18-22), based for the most part on very ancient observations, are extremely meagre, and the practical difficulties of carrying on further research, though not insuperable, are considered to be great ; ^ but, so far as those observations go, their result is conclusive, for we find that in the Blackbird, Turdus merula, the pro- portion which the brain bears to the body is lower than in any of the eight species of Oscines there named, being as 1 is to 67. In the Red- breast, Erithacus rubecula, certainly an ally of the Turdidae,, it is as 1 to 32 ; while it is highest in two of the Finches — the Siskin, Carduelis spinus, and the Canary-bird, Serinus canarius, being in each as 1 to 14. The signification of these numbers needs no comment to be understood. Evidence of another kind may also be adduced in proof that the high place hitherto commonly accorded to the Turdidsz is undeserved. Throughout the Class Aves it is observable that the young when first fledged generally assume a spotted plumage of a peculiar character ^ — nearly each of the body-feathers having a light-coloured spot at its tip — and this is ■^ One of the latest Avriters on the brain of Birds (Zeitschr. filr ivissensch. Zoolog. xxxviii. pp. 430-467, pis. xxiv. xxv.), though giving tables of the proportion of its several parts in various genera, unfortunately gives none of the proportion of the whole to the body. ^ Blyth in 1833 seems to have indicated this well-known fact as affording a character in classification {Field Nat. i. pp. 199, 200). Nearly 50 years after it was claimed as the discovery of another writer. INTRODUCTION 117 particularly to be remarked in many groups of Oscines, so much so indeed, that a bird thus marked may, in the majority of cases, be set down with- out fear of mistake as being immature. All the teachings of morphology go to establish the fact that any characters, not specially adaptive, which are peculiar to the immature condition of an animal, and are lost in its progress to maturity, are those which its less advanced progenitors bore while adult, and that in proportion as it gets rid of them it shews its superiority over its ancestry. This being the case, it would follow that an animal which at no time in its life exhibits such; marks of immaturity or inferiority must be of a rank, compared with its allies, superior to those which do exhibit these marks. The same may be said of external and secondary sexual characters. Those of the female are almost invariably to be deemed the survival of ancestral characters, while those peculiar to the male are in advance of the older fashion, generally and perhaps always the result of sexual selection.^ When both sexes agree in appearance it may mean one of two things — either that the male has not lifted himself much above the condition of his mate, or that, he having raised himself, the female has successfully followed his example. In the former alternative, as regards Birds, we shall find that neither sex departs very much from the coloration of its fellow-species ; in the latter the departure may be very considerable. Now, applying these principles to the Thrushes, we shall find that without exception, so far as is known, the young have their first plumage more or less spotted ; and, except in some three or four species at most,^ both sexes, if they agree in plumage, do not differ greatly from their fellow-species. Therefore as regards capacity of brain and coloration of plumage priority ought not to be given to the Turdidse. It remains for us to see if we can find the group which is entitled to that eminence. Among Ornithologists of the highest rank there have been few whose opinion is more worthy of attention than Macgillivray, a trained anatomist and a man of thoroughly independent mind. Through the insufficiency of his opportunities, his views on general classification were confessedly imperfect, but on certain special points, where the materials were present for him to form a judgment, one may generally depend upon it. Such is the case here, for his work shews him to have diligently exercised his genius in regard to the Birds which we now call Oscines. He belonged to a period anterior to that in which questions that have been brought uppermost by the doctrine of Evolution existed, and yet he seems not to have been with- out perception that such questions might arise. In treating of what he termed the Order Vagatores,^ including among others the Family Gorvidsz — the Crows, he tells us {Brit. Birds, i. pp. 485, 486) that they "are to be accounted among the most perfectly organized birds," justifying the opinion by stating the reasons, which are of a very varied kind, that led ••■ See Darwin, Descent of Alan, chaps, xv. xvi. ^ According to Seebolim {Gat. B. Brit. Mus. v. p. 232) these are in his nomencla- ture Merula nigrescens, M. fuscatra, M. gigas and M. gigantodes. ^ In this order he included several groups of Birds which we now know to be but slightly if at all allied ; but his intimate acquaintance was derived from the Gorvidaa and the allied Family we now call Stumidee. Ji8 DICTIONARY OF BIRDS him to it. In one of the earlier treatises of the late Prof. Parker, he has expressed {Trans. Zool. Soc. v. p. 150) his approval of Macgillivray's views, adding that, " as that speaking, singing, mocking animal, Man, is the culmination of the Mammalian series, so that bird in which the gifts of speech, song and mockery are combined must be considered as the top and crown of the bird-class." Any doubt as to which Bird is here intended is dispelled by another passage, written ten years later, wherein (M. Microscop. Journ. 1872, p. 217) he says, "The Crow is the great sub- rational chief of the whole kingdom of the Birds ; he has the largest brain ; the most wit and wisdom ;" and again, in the Zoological Society's Transactions (ix. p. 300), " In all respects, physiological, morphological and ornithological, the Crow may be placed at the head, not only of its own great series (birds of the Crow-form), but also as the unchallenged chief of the whole of the ' Carinatpe.'"^ It is to be supposed that the opinion so strongly expressed in the passage last cited has escaped the observation of many systematizers ; for he would be a bold man who would venture to gainsay it. Still Parker has left untouched or only obscurely alluded to one other consideration that has been -here brought forward in opposing the claim of the Turdidx, and therefore a few words may not be out of place on that point — the evidence afforded by the coloration of plumage in yoiing and old. Now the Gorvidee fulfil as completely as is possible for any group of Birds to do the obliga- tions required by exalted rank.^ To the magnitude of their brain beyond that of all other Birds Parker has already testified, and it is the rule for their young at once to be clothed in a plumage which is essentially that of the adult. This plumage may lack the lustrous reflexions that are only assumed when it is necessary for the welfare of the race that the wearer should don the best apparel, but then they are speedily acquired, and the original difference between old and young is of the slightest. Moreover, this obtains even in what we may fairly consider to be the weaker forms of the Gorvidee — the Pies and Jays. In one species of Gorvus, and that (as might be expected) the most abundant, namely, the Eook, G. frugilegus, very interesting cases of what would seem to be explicable on the theory of Eeversion occasionally though rarely occur. In them the young are more or less spotted with a lighter shade, and these exceptional cases, if rightly understood, do but confirm the rule.^ ^ Dr. Stejneger {Stand. Nat. Hist. iv. p. 482) considers that Parker himself has ' ' partly neutralized, not to say gainsaid " this opinion, citing a passage from the same paper {torn. cit. p. 304) wherein is the assertion that the Redstart, Phcenicura ruticilla, and its allies, which of course come near the Tlirushes, " are of the highest and purest blood, " with more to like effect. But Dr. Stejneger has overlooked the qualifying words "of the small Passerines " at the beginning of the paragraph, whicli makes all the difference, seeing that the Corvi(hv are the largest of them. Moreover, the drift of the whole passage shews that Parker was therein using the word "'Oscines,' or songsters," in its literal and not its technical sense. No one knows better than Dr. Stejneger that Crows are not exactly song-birds. " It is curious to remarlc, not that it can affect my argument, that this was also tlie opinion of the Quinarians {cf. Swainson, in 1834, Discourse on the Study of Xal. Hist. p. 262, and in 1835, Treatise on the Georjr. and Classific. of Animals, p. 243). ^ One of these specimens has been figured by Hancock {N. II. Trans. Northu7nb. and Durham, vi. pi. 3) ; see also Yarrell's British Birds, ed. 4, ii. pp. 302, 303. INTRODUCTION iig It may be conceded that even among Oscines ^ there are some other groups or sections of groups in which the transformation in ajopearance from youth to full age is as slight. This is so among the Paridse ; and there are a few groups in which the young, prior to the first moult, may be more brightly tinted than afterwards, as in the genera Phylloscopus and ^liithus. These anomalies cannot be explained as yet, but we see that they do not extend to more than a portion, and generally a small portion, of the groups in which they occur ; whereas in the Crows the likeness between young and old is, so far as is known, common to almost every member of the Family.^ It is therefore confidently that the present writer asserts, as Prof. Parker, with far more right to speak on the subject, has already done, that at the head of the Class Aves must stand the Family Gorvidse, of which Family no one will dispute the superiority of the genus Corvus, nor in that genus the pre-eminence of Corvus corax—the widely-ranging Raven of the Northern Hemisphere, the Bird perhaps best known from the most ancient times, and, as it happens, that to which belongs the earliest historical association with man. There are of course innumerable points in regard to the Classification of Birds which are, and for a long time will continue to be, hypothetical as matters of opinion, but this one seems to stand a fact on the firm ground of proof.^ A perusal of the foregoing can hardly fail to confirm the doubts already expressed in the initial ' Note ' (page vii.) as to the validity of anj' Systematic Arrangement of Birds as yet put forth. Still the history of Ornithology, as here sketched, gives hope of the ultimate attainment of the object sought by so many earnest students of the Science, though a long time may yet elapse before that end is reached. As in all branches of Zoology accession of knowledge, be it the making of a new discovery or the solution of an old difficulty, is followed by, or may almost be said to produce, a fresh series of cj^uestions of a kind that it is absolutely impossible to anticipate, and it needs only the application of experi- ence to foresee that this is likely to continue. But slow as is the process of eliminating error, it is certain that, notwithstanding occasional relapses, considerable advance has been made in the right direction. It is even possible that progress will be accelerated by some unexpected turn of ^ In other Orders there are many, for instance some Humming-birds and King- fishers ; but this only seems to shew the excellence in those Orders attained by the forms which enjoy the privilege. ^ The Canada Jay, Dysornithia canadensis, as rightly noted by Dr. Stejneger (torn. cit. p. 483), is apparently the only exception, and I do not attempt to account for it. ^ Dr. Stejneger (loc. cit.) would prefer with Sundevall, who certainly was not affected by morphological considerations, placing the Finches, Fringillidse, at the head of the Passeres, and selects as his example the Evening Grosbeak, Hesperi^jhona xesjjertina, of North America to demonstrate his position. That the Finches stand high I readily admit, but I fail to appreciate the force of the argument he adduces. Among other things he declares that in them "the plumage of the young is essentially lilie that of the adults" — a statement which will hardly be accepted by most ornitho- logists, and especially not so far as I can judge {cf. Audubon, B. Am. iii. pi. 207) in the example of his choice, which seems to be rather an unhappy one, seeing that in its immature plumage it differs so much from the adult as to have been described by a fairly good authority (Lesson, Illustr. Zool. pi. xxxi. ) as a distinct species under the name of Coccothraustes bonapartii. DICTIONARY OF BIRDS researcli. To that, however, we must not trust, but our duty is to proceed steadily along the path that seems the straightest, making sure of every step as we go. In this way we may be confident that the end, however distant,' will eventually arrive. The triple alliance of Morphology, Palaeontology and Geographical Distribution — when this last is rightly understood — can be trusted to keep our steps from wandering and to guide us to the goal we seek so far as the genealogy and relations of the several groups of Birds are concerned, for that is what their true Classification means. But Ornithology consists of much more than even a perfect Taxonomy, the field of investigation is much wider, and includes subjects that unfortunately have been too little considered by the higher intellects, especially of late years. Though there is no fear of Morphology or Palgeontology failing to be attractive, the real lessons conveyed by the facts of Geographical Distribution have been greatly neglected, while to name only two other subjects of which our ignorance immeasurably exceeds our knowledge. Migration and Variation still afford mysteries that have scarcely been penetrated. Hybridism too, which will probably lead to very important results, has never been investigated by a scientific Ornithorogist. There is therefore plenty of room for research, observa- tion and experiment, so that no honest enquirer in any branch of the study need feel discouraged by the prospect before him, unless indeed he be dismayed by the very vastness of the unknown regions he has to explore. INDEX TO INTEODUCTION ^LIAN, 3, 5 Albarda, 4I Albertus Magnus, 4 Albin, 9 Akkovandus, 6 Allen, 38 Alston, 44 Altum, 39 Andrews, 106, 108, 109 Aristotle, 3, 5 Aubert, 2 Audebert, 23 Audubon, 24, 25, 37 60, 66, 67, 119 Avicenna, 4 Babington, 45 Backhouse, 38 Baillon, 40 BaUly, 40 Baird, 37, 38 Baldamus, 17, 39 Baring-Gould, 38 Barraband, 23 Barrere, 5 Barrett-Hamilton, 44 Barrington, 19, 44 Barrows, 98 Bartlielemy-Lapom - meraye, 4O Bartholini, I4 Bartlett, 61 Bartram, IS Bechstein, 12, 17, 39 Beddard, 91 Behn, 8 Beilby, 20 Bell, Jeffrey, 69 Bell, Thomas, 19, 20 Belon, 5, 6, 9 Bendire, 37, 78 Bennett, 19, 36 Benoist, 40 Berkenhout, 18 Berlepsch, 39 Bernini, 17 Bertkold, 55 Beseke, 17 Bewick, 20, 29, 43 Bexon, 10 Bla.mvme,15, 30,34, 49, 51, 52, 54, 69 Blake-Knox, 44 Blancbard, 75, 76 Blandin, 40 Blanford, 36 Blasius, G. I4 Blasins, J. H. 17,39, 62, 67, 68, 70, 115 Blasius, R. 39 Blasius, W. 39 Blauw, 4i Blomefleld, 43 B]yth, 19, 36, 60,61, 64, 68, 116 Bocage, Barboza du, 40 Bochart, 6 Boddaert, 13 BoUe, 39 Bolton, 19 Bonaparte, 30, 37, 41, 73, 74, 103 Bonnaterre, 12 Bontius, 7 Booth, 44 Borggreve, 39 Borkhausen, 17 Borlase, 18 Borrer, 4^ Borrichius, I4 Bostock, 3 Bourjot St.-Hilaire, 22 Bouteille, 4O Bradshaw, 4 Brandt, A. 39 Brandt, J. F. 61, 62, 96, 111 Bree, 4^ Erehm, A. E. 39, 4O Brehm, C. L. 39 Breidenbach, 4 Brewer, 37 Brisson, 9, 10, 11, 13 Bronu, I4 Bro'wn, Peter, 12 Browne, Capt. T. 30 Browne, Sir T. 18 Brtinnich, 17 Bucldey, E. 7 Buckley, T. E. 44 Btittiliofer, 4I BufFon, 10 11, 12, 13,86 BuUer, 35 Bumm, 116 Bund, 45 Bureau, 40 Burmeister, 63, 64, 65 Cabanis, 36, 39, 70, 71, 72, 73, 94, 115 Caius, 5 Campbell, 36 Canivet, 4O Carter, 38 Carus, 14, 106, 107 Cassin, 24, 37, 38 Castelnau, 74 Catesby, 8 Caub, 4 Cetti, 17 Chambers, 78 Chapman, Abel, 40 Chapman, F. M. 38 Charleton, 7 Chesnon, 40 ChUd, 13 Christy, 44i 45 Clarke, Joseph, 4^ Clarke, W. E. 38, 45 Claus, 107 Clusius, 7 Cocks, 38 Goiter, 6, U CoUett, 38 Collin, 38 Collins, 16 Cook, 16 Cordeaux, 45 Cornay, 69, 70, 84 Cory, 37 Cones, 19, 37, 45, 60 Cousens, 25 Coxe, 42 Crespon, 4O Cresswell, 3 Crommelin, 4I Cuba, 4 Cuvier, 3, I4, 15, 29, 46, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 66, 70, 71 Dalgleish, 44 Dallas, 66 Darwm, 78, 81, 86, 117 Daudm, I4 D. B., 9 D'Aubenton, 10, 12, 26 Degland, 40, 4I Demarle, 4O Denny, 63 Derby, Lord, 12 Derham, 7 Desmarest, 23 Des Murs, 27, 42, 77 D'Urban, 45 Devis, 36 Dieffenbach, 35 Diggles, 35 Dillwyn, 45 Donovan, 19 Dover, Lady, 20 Dresser, 4I DICTION AR Y OF BIRDS Droste, 39 Dubois, Alph. If.!, 103 Dubois, C. F. 41' Du Bus, 27 Dumeril, 29, 110 Dupree, 19 Du Verney, 1^ Edwards, 5, 10 Elliot, 24, 37, 98 Ellis, 16 Ersch, 64 Evans, A. H. 99, 102 Evans, W. 44 Eyton, 35, 43, 76 Faber, 38 Fabricius, 18 Falk, 15 Fallopius, S Fatio, 39 FeUden, 38 Fernandez, 7 rinscb, 30, 39 Fischer de Wald- beim, 31 Fiscber, J. B. 17 Fleming, 33, 43 Florent-Provost, 23 Flower, 104 Forbes, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 115 Forskal, 15 Forster, G. 16 Forster, J. K. 16, 18 Fotbergill, 18 Fraser, 25 Friscb, J. L. 16 Fritscb, A. 41 Fiirbringer, 98, 100, 102,103,104,108, 111, 113, 114 Gadow, 55, 68, 74, 98, 99, 102, 103, 104,105,108,111, 113, 114 Gatke, 39, 42 Garrod, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 115, Gaza, 3 Gentil, 40 Geoflroy St. -Hilaire, ± 34, 46, 52, 55, 56, 58, 59 Geoffroy St. -Hilaire, I. 28, 58 Georgi, 15 Gerini, 10 Gervais, 74 Gesner, 5, 6 Giebel, 31 Giglioli, 39 Gilius, 17 Gill, 108 Giraud, 38 Gloger, 39, 51, 56, 57 Gmelin, J. F. 13 Gmeliu, J. G. 15 Gmelin, S, G. 15 Gosse, 36 Gould, 24, 25, 28, 35, 41, 44, 64 Graudidier, II4 Grandsagne, 3 Graves, 4^ Gray, G. R. 30, 31, 35 Gray, J. E. 15, 24 Gray, R. 44 Griffiths, 15 Groot, 4 Grossiuger, 16 Gruber, 64 Giildenstadt, 15 Gundlach, 37 Gunnerus, 18 Gurney, sen. 10 Haast, 35 Hackel, 81, 90, 107, 108 Hancock, 20, 45, 118 Hanmer, 18 Hardwicke, 24 Hardy, 40 Harting, 19, 45 Hartlaub, 39, 4O Harvey, I4 Harvie - Brown, 4^1 44 Hasselqvist, 15 Hayes, 13, 18 Headley, 103 Hector, 35 Heine, jun. 73 Heine, sen. 73 Henslow, 4^ Herbert, 19 Hermann, 12 Hernandez, 7 Hertwig, 107 Heysham, 19 Hintz, 39 Hogg, 74 Holland, 3 Holmgren, 39 Homeyer, A. von, 39 Homeyer, E. von, 39 Houghton, 2 Houttuvn, n Huet, 26 Hume, 36 Hunt, 42 Hunter, 16, 63 Hutchins, 19 Huxley, 82, 84, 85, 95, 102, 103, 106, 108,109,110,112, 113, 114 Illiger, 29, 63, 59, 62, 74, 102, 110, 112 Irby, 40 Isidorus, 4 Jacobson, 50 Jacquemin, 65, 69 Jacquin, 13 Jiickel, 39 Jameson, H. L. 44 Jameson, R. 37 Jardine, 19, 27, 37. 44 Jaubert, 4O Jentink, 4I Jenyns, 43 Jerdon, 36 Jonston, 6 Kalm, 15 Kaup, 30, 34 Kelaart, 36 Kessler, 66 Keulemans, 28, 35, 36, 42, 44 Kevserliug, 62, 67, 68, 70, 115 Kinberg, 39 Kingsley, 98 Kirby, 33, 50, 59 Kittlitz, 28 Kjrerbolling, 39 Klein, .y all are illustrations of the adapta- tion to a special mode of life, iQ^nd therefore not necessarily indica- tive of relationship, as rather an«,^|ogous than homologous structures. The beak of Parrots is ext j-e^^ely strong, and well adapted to the breaking open of nuts by )sheer force. The mandible ends in a transverse blunt edge, which\ presses against a corresponding horny prominence of the upper \ beak. In the large Microglossa (Cockatoo), Avhich lives on the stt^-,ne-hard fruit of the kanari-tree (Canarium commune), the beak lieai^g a striking resemblance to a sledge-hammer. Transverse ridges, 1[{^q those of a file, are common in front of the prominence of the up, per jaw, the bird using them as a rasp — no Parrot swallowing a.^^ything but absolutely com- BILL 35 minuted particles of hard substance, or pulpy and soft food — and also for filing or sharpening its mandible. In the Skimmer, Bhyncliops, the bill forms two sharp vertical blades, which somewhat gape asunder, with the further peculiarity that the mandibular sheath and the supporting bone itself is con- siderably larger than the upper portion. A vertically compressed bill is also common in the Alcidse, and is often vividly coloured dmdng the summer. In the Puffins the outermost bright layers of the horny sheaths, and the horny excrescences at the gape of the mouth and above the eyes are cast off periodically, these parts being developed for the breeding season (Bureau, Bull. Soc. Zool. France, 1877, p. 377/.) In many birds the covering of the bill, especially near the base of the culmen and the forehead, is swollen, and forms various pro- tuberances, horns, knobs, and other apparently ornamental excres- cences. In the Coots and in Musophaga (Plantain -eater) the coating of the culmen is produced backwards over the fore- head, overlapping the latter as a conspicuous white or yellow soft plate. Often the underlying bones, especially the nasals and the adjoining premaxillary parts, are also swollen, and form a light and extremely spongy meshwork of cancellated bony tissue, a peculiarity which attains its highest development in the HoRNBiLLS and in the Toucans. Similar swellings are the knobs on the bill or on the forehead of the Scoter and Mute Swan, of Globicera among Pigeons, of certain Cracidse, and of Macrocephalon (Megapode). In most of these cases the swellings are very light ; rarely, as in the Helmet -Hornbill, the bones of the forehead are greatly enlarged, and, although much cancellated, of great weight and strength ; moreover, the horny epidermal covering of the forehead is three quarters of an inch thick, and of the hardness and weight of ivory. Another deviation is constantly found in the Crossbill's beak, the sharply -pointed and hooked ends of the upper and lower jaws crossing each other in an individually varying way, there being an equal number of right and left -billed specimens. This crossing begins to shew itself before the young birds are fledged, increases with age, and ultimately leads to an asymmetrical development of the masticatory muscles and of the bones of the occipito-quadrate region. In Anarhynchus frontalis (Wrybill) the terminal half of the bill is turned towards the right side, an abnormality which exists in a marked degree even in the very young birds. The right edges of the premaxilla and of the mandible are thin and strongly turned inwards, so that the right and left sides are asymmetrical in section. The left nostril and the groove which is continued towards the terminal third of the bill remain in their original 36 BILL— BIRD position, but the right nostril, and still more the groove, are perceptibly slanting towards the right, as can be ascertained by viewing the bill from the dorsal side. Sexual Dimorphism is mostly restricted to peculiarly shaped bills ; for instance, the horn of the male Hornbills is often larger, and differs in shape from that of the female. In the males of Pelicans several unpaired excrescences are formed entirely by the horny coating of the premaxilla ; they sometimes reach a height of three to four inches, and are again cast off after the breeding season, resembling in the latter feature the Auks, as described above. The most striking example of dimorphic bills is that of the New- Zealand HuiA, Heterolocha, the bill of the female being slender, about four inches long, and much curved, while that of the male is nearly straight, stout, and scarcely half that length. The knobs or swellings in the Gallinse are mostly restricted to the males ; the same applies to (Edemia (Scoter). Sexual differences in colour are common. For instance, in the male Scoter the bill is black and orange, in the young and in the female it is simply grey, and with- out the knob. The bill of the adult male Blackbird is orange- yellow ; that of the young of both sexes and of the adult males of Buceros malayanus (Hornbill) is white, but becomes black in the adult female, forming thus an interesting exception to the general rule that the young agree with the females, and that aberrant coloration is confined to the males. The colour of the bill is deposited as a diffused pigment in the horny cells of the epidermal coat, but is occasionally restricted to the deeper layers, or even to the Malpighian layer itself, then shining through the outer transparent layers. In connexion with the bill is to be mentioned the " egg-tooth," which is developed in the embryos of all birds as a small whitish protuberance or conglomeration of salts of calcareous matter, deposited in the middle layers of the epidermis of the tip of the upper bill, without being connected with the premaxilla itself. The sharp point of this " tooth " soon perforates the upper layers of the horny sheath, and then files through the eggshell, a slight crack in the latter being sufficient to enable the young bird to free itself. A similar egg-tooth exists in Reptiles, and is, as in Birds, cast off after hatching. The wearing away of the growing and constantly renewed horny layers of the bill can be easily observed in the pealing beak of a Parrot. BIRD (etymology unknown ; but in Old English Brid), origin- ally the general name for the young of animals ; ^ then, as the ^ As ill Wyclif's translation of jVaUh. xxiii. 33, " cddris, and cddris briddis " (A.V. "serpents" and "generation of vipers"); Trevisa, Barlh dc P. It. xii. v. BIRD-OF^PARADISE yj ancient word Fowl became specialized in meaning, taking its place to signify what cannot be more tersely expressed tban by the saying tbat " A bird is known by its feathers." This proverb is, accord- ing to our present knowledge, also a scientific definition, for no other group in the Animal Kingdom has the same kind of clothing (see Feathers), though, regarding as almost certain the evolution of Birds from Reptiles, it must be that at one time there existed creatures intermediate between them, and it may be that remains of some of them will yet be discovered, shewing that plumage was worn by animals which had not yet dropped all the characters that now distingiiish Eeptiles from Birds. The two Classes (Reptilia and Aves) have been brigaded together by Prof. Huxley under the name of Sauropsida, and there can be no doubt that they are essentially much more closely allied to each other than either is to the rest of the Vertebrates. It has of late years become manifest that among Eeptiles the forms which approach most nearly to Birds are those known as the Binosauria ; but of them there is not one yet dis- covered respecting the rank of which any reasonable doubt may be entertained, though certain parts of the skeleton, and particu- larly of the pelvic arch, present a remarkable resemblance to the corresponding parts of certain Birds, of the Ratit^ especially. On the other hand, the earliest known Bird, Archseopteryx, is less like the Dinosaurs than are the modern Eatitae. The gulf between Birds and Mammals is much wider than between the former and Reptiles, notwithstanding that the lowest of existing Mammals, the Monotremata, possess several bird-like characters in their structure, and, as is now proved, lay eggs (see Anatomy, Fossil Birds, and Introduction). BIRD-OF-PARADISE, a phrase used in many European lan- guages since the return (6 Sept. 1522) of the first expedition for circumnavigating the globe, commonly known as Magellan's. In December 1521 the voyagers, then at Tidore, one of the Moluccas, were offered by the ruler of Batchian, as a gift to the King of Spain, two very beautiful dead birds, as we are told by Antonio Pigafetta the chronicler of the voyage (Primo Viaggio intorno al Gloho, ed. Amoretti, Milano : 1800, p. 156), who is generally believed to have been the first to introduce these birds to the notice of Europeans ; ^ 415, " In temperat yeres ben fewe byrdes of been " [=bees], and op. cit. xiii. xxvi. 458 " All fysshe . . . fede and kepe theyr byrdes " ; Scots Acts, 7 Jac. I. " The Woolfe and Woolfe-birdes [i.e. cubs] suld be slaine." The connexion formerly thought to exist between hird and hreed or brood is now denied {New English Dictionary, sub voce), but no approach to the derivation of the first has been made. ■^ Pigafetta's account contains some details worthy of attention. It describes the birds as being as big as Thrushes, with a small head, a long bill, and slender legs like pens used for writing, about as long as a palm. They had no wings 38 BIRD-OF-PARADISE but it is now certain that he was anticipated by Maximilianus Transylvanus, a young man who was residing in the Spanish court on the arrival of the survivors of Magellan's company, and promptly wrote to his father, the Archbishop of Salzburg, an account of their discoveries and spoils, sending moreover to him one of the wonderful birds they had obtained. This account {Be Moluccis insulis &c.) ^ was published at Cologne in the January following, and the native name of the birds, of which it seems that five examples were brought home, is given as Mamuco-Diata, a variant of Manucodiata, meaning the Bird of the Gods, a name which seems to be still in use (cf. Crawfurd, Malay and Engl. Did. p. 97). But it may well be that even before this Birds-of -Paradise were known to Europeans, for the Portuguese reached the ]\Ioluccas in 1510, to say nothing of the possibility of skins being imported by Eastern traders at a much earlier period. Belon, who travelled in the Levant between 1546 and 1549, mentions {Observations de plusieurs singularitez &c. liv. iii. chap. 25), among the feathery adornments of the Janissaries, plumes which could hardly be other than those of these birds ; and expressly states that they were obtained from the Arabs. ^ His statement was first published in 1553, and in the same year appeared the work of Cardanus, De Subtilitate, wherein (lib. x.) the Manucodiata, as the Bird-of-Paradise now began to be called (the adoption of its Malay name shewing that knowledge of it was derived from Spanish or Portuguese navi- gators), is made to support the author's argument. In 1555 it was again treated of by Belon, as well as by Gesner, who figured (p. 612) what seems to have been a specimen of Paradisea minor, both of them expressing doubt as to the truth of the stories which were already rife on the subject. Some of these were touched upon in 1557 by J. C. Scaliger in his reply {Exotericarum exercitationum Liher XV. ccxxviii. 2) to Cardanus, while in 1599 Aldrovandus (Ornithol. (which were doubtless cut off) but in their place long feathers of different colours like great plumes (pennacchi), the tail like a Thrush's, and all the rest of the feathers, the wings excepted, of a dull colour. Much of this description fits the only species of Bird-of-Paradise that inhabits Batchian, the ruler of which island, as above stated, gave the birds ; but that species remained unknown to naturalists until Mr. Wallace procured examples in October 1858 {Malay Archi- pelago, ii. ]ip. 40, 41), and it was subsequently described as Semioptera wallacii. 1 I have not seen the original, but a fac-simile reprint, together with a trans- lation of it, is given by the late Mr. Henry Stevens of Vermont in his Johann ScJwner &c., edited by Mr. C. PI. Coote (London : 1888). ^ He said that they belonged to birds called llhintaces, which some modern writers identified with the Apus of classical authors, though he himself thought they were the feathers of the Phcenix. A plausible case might indeed be made out for connecting the legend of the bird last-named with that of the gods and of ])ara(lise. BIRD-OF-PARADISE 39 lib. xii.), rejoicing of course in these absurd fables, severely took to task some of those who doubted them — among them Pigafetta himself, who is rated for declaring that Birds-of-Paradise had legs, for it was clear from the authorities cited that they had or ought to have none. Aldrovandus professedly figured five species, but only three of them can be referred with any certainty to the genus PajradAsea. There would be little use in d^velling upon the many false assertions made by some of the older writers concerning these gorgeous and singular birds, nor is space here available to recount the way in which species after species has been discovered. The first naturalist who was able to observe anything of them in their own haunts seems to have been Lesson, who in July and August 1824 passed a fortnight at Dorey in New Guinea ( Fo?/. Coquille, Zoologie, ii. p.^ 436) ; but, though his remarks have in- terest, his opportunities are not worthy to be named "with those enjoyed \)j Mr. Wallace, who in the course of his long sojourn and wanderings in the Moluccas and neighbouring islands made the personal acquaintance of nearly every species then known, and indeed first brought to the notice of naturalists one most curious form, Semioptera wallacii. His admirable account of their habits may be read in one of the most accessible of books, his Malay Archipelago. Varied as is the appearance of the several forms of Paradiseidx, most of them are sufficiently well known to require no description here. In 1873 Mr. Elliot completed a fine Mono- graph of the Family, which he divided into 3 subfamilies — Paradiseinds, with 1 0 genera and 1 7 species ; PJpimachinse, with 4 genera and 8 species ; and Tedonarchinse — the last comprising the Bo^^rER-BiRDS, and including in all 36 species, of which 22 inhabit New Guinea. In 1881 Prof. Salvadori enumerated 39 species, which he disposed of in 21 genera, as occurring within the scope of his elaborate Ornitologia della Papuasia e delle Molucche. Recent explorations, mostly by German naturalists, and especially by Dr. Hunstein, have considerably increased this number, and the repre- sentatives of two very distinct and beautiful new forms Astrarchia stephanise and Paradisornis rudolphi, to say nothing of two fine species of the old genus Paradisea, P. gidielmi-ii., and P. augustse-vidorise, by their names testify to the loyalty of Drs. Finsch, A. B. Meyer, and Cabanis, who have described them (Zeitschr. ges. Orn. 1885, pp. 369-391, pis. xv.-xxii. ; transl. Ibis, 1886, pp. 237-258, pi. vii. ; and Journ.f. Orn. 1888, p. 119, 1889, pis. i. ii.) The Paradiseidx are admittedly true Passeres, but their exact position cannot be said to have been absolutely determined, though there can be little doubt of their forming part of the group indefinitely known as " Austrocoraces " ^ — to which so many forms ^ The Noto-Coracomoiyhse of Parker {Trans. Zool. Soc. ix. p. 327). 40 BIRD-OF-PREY— BITTERN of the Australian Region belong — and the precise limits of the Family must still be regarded as uncertain (see Bower -BIRD, Manucode, and Rifleman-bird). BIRD-OF-PREY, a phrase in common use, signifying any member of the Order Accipitres of Linnaeus (the Shrikes being generally excepted) or of the Raptores of many later systematists. BISHOP-BIRD, or Bishop-Tanager, Latham's rendering {Gen. Synops. ii. p. 226) of the French V]^vique,'hj which a species inhabiting Louisiana was, according to Dupratz (Hist, de la Louisiane, ii. p. 140), originally called, as stated by BufFon (Hist. Nat. Ois. iv. p. 291). Dupratz's bird was probably the Spiza cyanea of modern ornithology, the Indigo-bird or Indigo-Bunting of the English in North America ; but Buffon confounded it with his Organiste of Santo Domingo — a very different species figured by D'Aubenton (PL enl. 809, fig. 1) ; while Brisson (Orn. iii. p. 40) had already applied the French name (I'Evesque, as he wrote it) to a third species from Brazil, which subsequently became the Tanagra episcopus of Linnaeus, and this seems to be the only one now known (and that to few but "fanciers") as the "Bishop-Bird" or " Bishop-TANAGER " — the colour of its plumage suggesting, as in the original case, the appellation. Audubon, himself a Louisianian, makes no mention of the name "Bishop-Bird"; but says (B. Amer. iii. p. 96) that it was known to his countrymen as the Petit PapeUeu. He adds that the first settlers called all the Buntings, Finches and " Orioles " Papes. BITTERN (in older English "Bittour," "Botor," and "Buttour") cognate with the French Butor, and of obscure origin says Dr. Murray,^ though Belon's suggestion, made in 1555, connecting it with a bird described by Pliny (lib. x. cap. xlii.), which imitates the lowing of oxen (bourn), and hence was called taurus in the district of Arelate ^ (Aries), may be correct ; for the bird is the Botaurus of some mediaeval writers, and their name is still kept by systematists as that of the genus to which the Bittern belongs. Turner, in 1544, gave as an English synonym " Mired romble " ; while " Butter-bump " (corrupted into " Botley-bump ") and perhaps other uncouth forms have reference to the booming or belloA^ng sound for which this species was famous. ^ It seems, however, not to be connected, as lie thinks, with the mediiieval Latin Bitorius for that is generally glossed JVre&nna (When) or sometimes as " Earth linger " or " Yrdling." It may not signify a bird at all, but a Shrew- Mouse — Araneus, in English a "[w]ranner." Butio seems also to be meant by mediajval writers in some cases, and a hopeless confusion has been established between that word and BiUeo, a Buzzard. - According to Holland {Faun. Fop. France, p. 376) it is known in some parts of France as Bceuf d'eau, Taureau d'^tang, and other names of similar import. BITTERN 41 The Bittern is the Botaurus stellaris of ornithology, belonging to the Family Ardeidai (Heron), but to a genus fairly separable, more perhaps on account of its almost wholly nocturnal habits and correspondingly -adapted coloration, than on strictly structural grounds, though some differences of proportion are observable. It was formerly an abundant bird in many parts of Britain ; but, since the reclamation of the bogs and fens it used to inhabit, it is become only an irregular visitant, — though not a winter passes without its appearing in some numbers, when its uncommon aspect, its large size, and beautifully - pencilled plumage cause it to be regarded as a great prize by the lucky gun-bearer to whom it falls a \'ictim. Its value as a delicacy for the table, once so highly esteemed, has long vanished. The old fable of this bird inserting its beak into a reed or plunging it into the ground, and so causing the booming sound with which its name will be always associated, is also exploded, and nowadays indeed so few people in Britain have ever heard its loud and awful voice, which seems to be uttered only in the breeding-season, and is therefore unknown in a 42 BLACKBIRD— BLACKCAP country where it no longer breeds/ that incredulity as to its boom- ing at all has in some quarters succeeded the old belief in this as in other reputed peculiarities of the species. The Bittern is found from Ireland to Japan, in India, and throughout the whole of Africa — suitable localities being, of course, understood. Australia and NeAV Zealand have a kindred species, B. poeciloptilus, and North America a third, B. mugitans or B. lentiginosus. The former is said to bellow like a bull, but authorities differ as to the vocal powers of the latter,^ which has several times wandered to Europe, and is distinguishable by its smaller size and uniform greyish-brown prim- aries, which want the tawny bars that characterize B. stellaris. Nine other species of Bitterns from various parts of the world are admitted by Schlegel (3£us. P.-B. Ardese, pp. 47-56), but some of them should perhaps be excluded from the genus Botcmrus ; on the other hand, Dr. Reichenow {Joiirn. f. Orn. 1877, pp. 241-251), by comprehending the birds of the Group Ardetta, — commonly known as "Little Bitterns," and differing a good deal from the true Bitterns — makes the whole number of species twenty-two. BLACKBIRD, the common, but not the most ancient,^ name of the Ousel, the Turdus menda,^ of Linneeus and most ornithologists, one of the best known of British birds ; but since conferred in dis- tant countries on others whose only resemblance to the original bearer lies in their colour, as in North America to several members of the Ideridse (Grackle and Icterus), in the West Indies to the species of Crotophaga (Ani), and perhaps to more in other lands. Occasionally too in translations of Scandinavian Avorks it is used to render Svartfugl — the general name for the Alcida} (Auk) — of which indeed it is an equivalent, but its use in that capacity tends to mistakes. BLACKCAP, the Sylvia atricapilla of ornithology, one of the most delicate songsters of the British Islands, and fortunately of general distribution in summer. To quote the praise bestoAved upon it in more than one passage by Gilbert White Avould be ^ The last recorded instance of the Bittern breeding in England was in 1S6S, as mentioned by Stevenson {Birds of Norfolk, ii. p. 164). All the true Bitterns, so far as is known, lay eggs of a light olive-brown colour. - Richardson, a most accurate observer, positively asserts {Fauna Borcall- Americana, ii. p. 374) that its booming exactly resembles that of its European congener, but few American ornithologists, Mr. Torrey {Auk, 1SS9, pp. 1-S) excepted, seem to have heard it in perfection. 3 Its earliest use seems to be in the Boole of St. Alhans in 14S6, where it occurs as "blacke bride." ■* By some unhappy accident the order of these A\'ords is reversed in Dr. Murray's New Emjlish DklionarTj. The bird has been named Morula atra, but never Mcrula turdus (as therein stated) by Linuanis or any one else. BLACKCOCK— BLOOD 43 superfluous. Enough to say that its tones always brought to his mind the lines in As You Like It (Act ii. so. 5) : " And turn his merry note Unto the sweet bird's throat." The name, however, is only applicable to the cock bird of this species, Avho further difters from his browncapped mate by the pure ashy- grey of his upper plumage ; but notwithstanding the marked sexual difference in appearance, he shares with her the duty of incubation, and has been declared by more than one writer to sing while so emploj^ed — a statement that seems hardly credible. Closely allied to the Blackcap, which, it may be said, is a regular summer visit- ant, though examples have sometimes occurred in winter in England, are the so-called Garden- Warbler, Sylvia salicaria (S. or Curruca Jiortensis of some authors), and the White-throat. But the name Blackcap is also applied to some other birds, and both in this country and in North America especially to certain species of Titmouse and Gull which have the top of the head black, as well as locally to the Stonechat and Reed-BUNTING. BLACKCOCK, the male of the bird to which the name Grows or Grouse seems to have been originally given. BLEATER, a name for the Snipe, from the noise it makes in its love-flights, the cause of which has given rise to much discussion. BLIGHT-BIRD, see Zosterops. BLOOD is the fluid which circulates through the heart, arteries, and veins. It is mixed Avith lymph, its corpuscles being suspended in a fluid called blood-plasm. The arterial blood is of a lighter red than the venous, which is more purple blood. Blood shews the following composition : — 1. Fied blood-corpuscles, oval, flat disks, "with rounded-off margins and a central nucleus which forms a slight swelling : they con- tain a substance known as hsemoglobin, which, combining with the oxygen of the blood, causes the latter's red colour. These red corpuscles are present even in a small drop of blood in innumerable numbers ; they are largest in the Cassowary, smallest in Humming- birds, their smallest axis measuring about mm. y^q- or yYi") their larger axis from mm. -^ to xft- 2. JVhite-hlood or lympJi-corpuscles ; by far less numerous, colour- less, and of very variable size (from mm. 5-^0- to xw)j shewing lively amoiboid motions. 3. The hlood-plasm, consisting of fibrin and serum. The latter is a fluid, frequently yellowish, and is composed of water, albumen, and various salts. 44 BLOOD-BIRD— BLUEBIRD The function of the blood is this : The arterial blood in the capillaries of the body gives olf its oxygen to the tissues of the body ; the lymph, charged with the nutritive elements derived through the process of digestion, bathes the same tissues by leaving the capillaries, and is collected again into lymphatic vessels, being ultimately emptied into the big veins of the body, to be mixed again with the deoxydized blood returning likewise through the veins from the capillaries of the whole body. All this exhausted blood is, together with the lymph, received into the right auricle of the heart, thence pumped through the right ventricle and the pulmonary arteries into the capillaries of the lungs, there to give up its carbonic acid, and to be charged again with oxygen. Returning through the pulmonary veins into the left auricle, and thence into the left ventricle, it is forced by the contraction of the latter into the arteries of the body to commence its circulation anew. The lymph is a fluid like the blood -plasm, slightly yellowish or colourless and containing only white, but no red, blood- corpuscles. BLOOD-BIRD, one of the species of the genus Myzomela, belonging to the Meliphagidse (Honey-SUCKEr), so called in New South Wales — M. sanguinolenta (Latham). (Gould, Handb. B. Australia, i. p. 555.) BLOOD -OLPH, a not uncommon local name of the Bull- finch. BLOOD-PHEASANT, the Anglo-Indian name for the Ithaginis cruentus of ornithologists, one of the most beautiful game-birds of the mountains of Eastern Nepal and Sikkim, so called from the blood-red blotches with which its otherwise green plumage is diversified. A second species of the genus, /. geoffroyi, has been described from Northern China. By some systematists they are referred to the subfamily Perdicinse, by others to the Phasianinse. (Jerdon, B. India, iii. p. 522.) BLUEBIRD, in North America the appropriate name of the no less familiar than favourite Sialia wilsoni, or sialis of ornithology, and of its congeners *S'. mexicana or occidentalism and S. arctica : — the first, with a chestnut throat and breast, being an abundant bird on the eastern side of the continent, appearing also in Bermuda ; the second, with the middle of the back and breast chestnut, taking ^ By some writers »S'. mexicana h regarded as distinct from S. occidcntalis, and there seems little doubt that S. azurca of Central America may be considered a good species. Mr. Seebohm {Cat. B. Brit. Mus. v. p. 32S) places in this genus the Grandala cozlicolor of the Himnlaya and other mountain-ranges in Asia. BL UECAP—BOA T-BILL 45 its place further to the south and westward ; and the third, of a lighter hue and with no chestnut, being the north-western form. The genus Sialia is one of those that are midway between the re- puted Families Sylviiclse (Warbler) and Turdidx (Thrush), and with Moiiticola and some others shew how hard it is to maintain any valid distinction between them. The Bluebirds of North America breed in holes of trees, and seem all to lay pale blue spotless eggs. In "Western India^ Ceylon, and Burma, the name Bluebird is equally well bestowed on the Irena puella of modern ornithologists, which is commonly referred to the chaotic groups Timeliidx or Crateropo- didse (Gates, Fauna of British India, Birds, i. pp. 239, 240), and has several representatives in the Indian Region (Jerdon, B. India, ii. p. 106); but the precise place of the genus must be regarded as uncertain. According to Mr. Layard {B. S. Afr. p. 365), in the seas of the Cape of Good Hope, the name is applied to a wholly different kind of bird, Diomedea fuliginosa (Albatros). BLUECAP, a common name of the Blue Titmouse Farus cxruleus. BLUETHROAT, the English name by which the beautiful Mota- cilla suecica of Linnaeus is now generally known. By some systematists it has been referred to the genus Ruticilla (Redstart) or to Erithacus (Redbreast), and by others regarded as the type of a distinct genus Cyanecula — the last view being perhaps justifiable. There are two, if not three, forms of Bluethroat in which the male is quite distin- guishable : — (1) the true C. suecica, with a bright bay spot in the middle of its clear blue throat, breeding in Scandinavia, Northern Russia, and Siberia, and wintering in Abyssinia and India, though rarely appearing in the intermediate countries, to the wonder of all who have studied the mystery of the migration of birds ; next there is (2) C. leucocyanea, with a white instead of a red gular spot, a more western form, ranging from Barbary to Germany and Holland ; and lastly (3) C. wolfi, thought by some authorities (and not without reason) to be but an accidental variety of the preceding (2), with its throat wholly blue, — a form of comparatively rare occurrence. The first of these is a not unfrequent, though very irregular visitant to England, while the second has appeared there but seldom, and the third never, so far as is known. The affinity of the Bluethroat to the Redstart is undeniable ; but it is not much further removed from the Nightingale, and forms a member of that group which connects the so-called Families Sylviidm (Warbler) and Turdidm (Thrush). BOAT-BILL, the Cancroma cochlearia of most ornithologists, a native of Tropical America, and the only species of its genus. It seems to be merely a Night-HERON (Nycticorax) with an exaggerated bill, so much widened as to suggest its English name, and its habits, 46 BOA TS WAIN— BOB-LINCOLN so far as they are known, confirm the inference derived from its structure. The wonderful " Shoe-bird " or Whale-headed Stork \ BOAT-BILL. (Balsenic&ps) is regarded by some authorities as allied to Cancroma ; but the present writer cannot recognize in it any close affinity to the Ardeidx. BOATSWAIjST, in seamen's ornithology, is a name applied to several kinds of birds, and was perhaps first given to some of the genus Stercorarius (Skua), though nowadays most commonly used for the species of Fhaethon (Tropic-bird), the projecting middle feathers of the tail in each being generally likened to the marline- spike that is identified with the business of that functionary, but probably the authoritative character assumed by both Skua and officer originally suggested the appellation. BOAT-TAIL, a common name applied to certain North- Ameri- can birds of the genus Quiscalus, belonging to the Family Ideridai (see Grackle and Icterus), from the power they have of holding the tail in the shape of a boat with the concavity uppermost. BOB-LINCOLN, BOBLINK, and BOBOLINK, names given by the English in North America to what is commonly called in books the Rice-Bunting, Dolichonyx ori/zivom, one of the best-known birds of that continent — valued for its song and still more for its sapidity, in which last respect it equals if it does not surpass the famed BOB- WHITE— BONE 47 Ortolan. Its good qualities have been described at length by Alex- ander Wilson, Nuttall, and Audubon, to say nothing of more recent writers on North-American ornithology, and to those authors must reference be made for its description and an account of its habits. From the purely scientific point of view the form is one of consider- able interest, as it seems to connect the Emberizidx (Bunting) with the Ideridse (Grackle, Icterus) ; and, though generally con- sidered to belong to the latter, is rather a divergent member of that Family. It is a bird that performs vast migrations, breeding as high as lat. 54° N., and in winter visiting the Antilles and Central and South America as far as Paraguay. BOB-WHITE, a nickname of the Virginian Quail, Ortyx vir- ginianus, aptly bestowed from the call-note of the cock. BONE or osseous tissue consists of phosphate and carbonate of lime, salt, and a few other earthy substances. Hollow bones contain marrow, a fatty substance with delicate connective tissue, except where it has been driven out by the penetrating Air-sags. On the surface of a bone, covered by a fibrous membrane, the periosteum, there open small, often microscopic, holes, which as " Haversian Canals " are continued through the walls of the bone into larger spaces or cancelli, and ultimately into the marrow cavity. These render possible the entrance of blood-vessels, air-cells, and nerves. Bones which have their entire substance or diploe between the outer and the inner lamella filled with cavities and cancelli are called cancellated or spongy ; this is especially the case in the bones of the head of Owls, and to an enormous extent in the " horn " of the Hornbills. The bony substance forms consecutive layers around the Haversian canals. The layers themselves contain numerous irregular lacunae, formerly but wrongly called bone -corpuscles, from which radiate numerous extremely fine canaliculi ; these communicate with those of neighbouring lacunse and with the Haversian canals, securing thus access of blood and lymph to any part of the bone. Bone is never directly formed out of the indifferent embryonic tissue, it always passes through a stage of connective tissue. If this tissue ossifies directly, it becomes a primary or memhrctne bone ; if the tissue is cartilage and finally supplanted by bony tissue, the latter forms a secondary or cartilage bone. Most of the bones of a bird's skeleton pass during their development through such a cartilaginous stage. Membrane bones are principally some cf those forming the cranium, as the parietal, frontal, maxillse, and vomer. Bones which are developed in tendons by direct ossification are termed sesamoid bones, as the brachial and the crural patella. Either kind of bone can ossify from various centres, but these " centres of ossification " do not necessarily indicate that the bone in question is composed of a number of originally separate bones. 48 BONXIE—BO WER-BIRD In long bones especially the shaft ossifies first, while the ends remain for a long time cartilaginous as " epiphyses " and eventually ossify often from a centre of their own, and are only in the adult completely fused with the shaft, forming the articulating facets, or projecting " processes " for the attachment and leverage of muscles. BONXIE, the name by which the Great Skua, Stercm'arius catarrhades, is known in some of the Shetland Islands, its only British hahitat. BOOBY, said by Prof. Skeat {Ettjmol. Did.) to be derived from the Spanish or Portuguese hoho — a fool, and that from the Latin halbus — stuttering or inarticulate, a name applied, most likely by our seamen originally, to certain birds from their stupidity in alight- ing upon ships and allowing themselves to be easily taken by the hand.^- The Boobies are closely allied to the Gannet, and indeed can hardly be separated from the genus Sula, though they diff"er in having no median stripe of bare skin down the front of the throat, and they almost invariably breed upon trees instead of rocks, and are inhabitants of warmer climates. One of them, S. cyanops, Avhen adult has much of the aspect of a Gannet, but aS'. piscator is readily distinguishable by its red legs, and S. leucogaster by its upper plumage and neck of deep brown. These three are widely distri- buted within the tropics, and are in some places exceedingly abund- ant. A fourth, S. variegata, which seems to preserve throughout its life the spotted suit characteristic of the immature S. hassaiui, has a much more limited range, being as yet only known from the coast of Peru, where it is one of the birds which contribute to the forma- tion of guano. BOWER-BIRD, Gould's rather poetical name for some inhabit- ants of Australia which, while he was in that country he ascer- tained,^ as on his return he announced (25 August, 1840) to the Zoological Society, to have the extraordinary habit of building what the colonists commonly called " runs." " These constructions ", he rightly said (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1840, p. 94), "are perfectly anomalous in the architecture of birds, and consist in a collection of pieces of stick or grass, formed into a bower ; or one of them (that of the Chlaniydera) might be called an avenue, being about three feet in length, and seven or eight inches broad inside ; a transverse section giving the figure of a horse-shoe, the round part downwards. They ^ Thus Purclias in his account of Davis's Second Voyage to India, in 1604-5, tells {Pilcjrimes, I. bk. iii. p. 132) of "fowles called Pashara boues " — which correctly spelt would be Paxaros bobos — at the island of Fernando Norhona. Later examples are too numerous to cite. 2 The discovery seems to have been mainly due to the late Mr. C. Coxen of Brisbane. BO WER-BIRD 49 are used by the birds as a playing-house or ' run,' as it is termed, and are used by the males to attract the females. The ' run ' of the Satin-bird is much smaller, being less than one foot in length, and moreover differs from that just described in being decorated with the highly-coloured feathers of the Parrot-tribe ; the Chlamydera, on the other hand, collects around its ' run ' a quantity of stones, shells, bleached bones, etc. ; they are also strewed down the centre within." This statement, marvellous as it seemed, has been proved by many subsequent observers to be strictly true, and it must be borne in mind that these structures,^ each of which as above described he next year (1 Sept. 1841) figured {B. Austral, iv. pis. 8, 10), have nothing to do with nests of the birds — indeed, their mode of nidification, which was not made known until some years later, presents no extraordinary feature. Moreover, the birds will build their "bowers " in confinement, and therein disport them- selves, as has been repeatedly shewn in the Zoological Gardens ^ by the Satin-bird last mentioned, Phlorhynchus violaceiis. Subsequently it was found that the Eegent-bird, Sericulus melinus, a species long before known, had the habit of making a " bower " of similar kind, though built, so to speak, in another style of architecture, and having for its chief decoration the shells of a small species of Helix. The account of these curious birds which may be most conveniently consulted is that in G-ould's Handbook to the Birds of Australia (i. pp. 441-461), published in 1865 ; but since that time discoveries still more wonderful have been made. A bird of New Guinea, originally referred to the genus Ptilorhynchus, but now recognized as Aniblyornis inoniatus, has been found by Sign. Beccari to present not only a modification of bower-building, but an appreciation of beauty perhaps unparalleled in the animal world. His interesting observations (Annali del Mus. Civ. de Storia Nat. di Genova, ix. pp. 382-400, tav. viii.) shew that this species, which he not inaptly calls the " Gardener " (Gjardiniere), builds at the foot of a small tree a kind of hut or cabin (capanna) some two feet in height, roofed with orchid-stems that slope to the ground, regularly ^ Gould brought home with him at least two examples, which he gave to the British Museum. There is no reason to suppose that this extraordinary liabit had been described before the date above given, or that the name "Bower-bird" had been previously used, and yet we find Trelawny in his Memoirs of Shelley, published in 1878, referring to himself (i. p. 136) as saying, in a conversation not later than 1822, "You two have built your nest after the fashion of the Aus- tralian bower-birds " ! " The ordinary visitor to these gardens seems to regard the structures of the Bower-birds without any intelligent interest. He perhaps supposes that thej'- are the handiwork of one or other of the keepers. From my own long connexion with the Zoological Society, I think I am able to state that neither in this nor any- _ thing else of the kind is any deception practised. The Bower-birds are supplied with materials, and that is all. so BOWER-BIRD radiating from the central support, whicli is covered with a conical mass of moss, and sheltering a gallery round it. One side of this hut is left open, and in front of it is arranged a bed of verdant moss, bedecked with blossoms and berries of the brightest colours. As these ornaments wither they are removed to a heap behind the hut, and replaced by others that are fresh. The hut is circular, and some three feet in diameter, and the moss)^ lawn in .... W^ "Garden" of Ambltoenis. (After Beocari. From The Gardeners' Chronicle, N.S., vol. ix. p. 333.) front of it of nearly twice that expanse. Each hut and garden are, it is believed, though not known, the work of a single pair of birds, or perhajjs of the male only ; and it may be observed tliat this .species, as its trivial name implies, is wholly inornate in pUmiage.^ Not less remarkable is the more recently described ^ Another species referred to the same genus, A. snhaJaris, the female of which was originally described by Mr. Sharjie {Journ. Linn. Soc. xvii. p. 40) as being still more dingy, turned out to have the male embellished with a wonderful crest of reddish-orange (Fiusch and Meyer, Zcitschr. f. gcs. Orn. 1S85, p. 390, tab. xxii.). BRACHIAL ARTERY— BRAIN 51 " bower " of Prionodura, a genus of which the male, like the Regent- bird, is conspicuous for his bright orange coloration. This structure is said by Mr. Devis (Trans. Roy. Soc. Qiieensland, 14 June 1889) to be piled up almost horizontally round the base of a tree to the height of from 4 to 6 feet, and around it are a number of hut-like fabrics, having the look of a dwarfed native camp. Allied to the forms already named are two others, ScenojJGeus and Ailiuwdus, which, though not apparently building "bowers," yet clear a space of ground some 8 or 9 feet in diameter, on which to display themselves, ornamenting it " with tufts and little heaps of gaily tinted leaves and young shoots" (Ramsay, Proc. Zool. Soc. 1875, p. 592). The former of them, Avhich, according to Mr. Lum- holtz (Among Cannibals, pp. 139, 140), covers a space of about a square yard mth large fresh leaves neatly laid, and removes them as they decay, inhabits Queensland, and to the latter belongs the " Cat-bird," so well known to Australians from its loud, harsh, and extraordinary cries. By most systematists these birds are placed among the Para- diseidx (Bird-of-Paradise) ; but in the British Museum Catalogue of Birds (vi. pp. 380-396) they are to be found in the "limbo large and broad" of Timeliidse — though allowed the rank of a subfamily " Ptilonorhynchinse," the name being taken from the feathei'ed and not the bare (as might from its ety- Ptilorhynchus violaceus. 1 1 1 , i\ T (After Swainson.) mology have been expected) condi- tion of the base of the bill shewn in the figure of that part in the Satin-bird. BRACHIAL ARTERY, see Vascular System : BRACHIAL PLEXUS, see Nervous System. BRAIN, the part of the Central Nervous System which is enclosed by the cranium, and in Birds consists of three principal divisions, named after their position — Hind- Mid- and Forebrain. The hindbrain is composed of the medulla oblongata, the direct and comparatively little modified continuation of the spinal cord, and of the cerebellum, these two parts being connected with each other by the pedunculi or crura cerebelli. The midbrain contains the peduncles of the great or forebrain, and the cortex or rind of the optic lobes. The forebrain is subdivided into the thalamencephalon and into the cerebral hemispheres. The ventral parts of the thalamencephalon form the hypophysis and the chiasma or crossing of the optic nerves, the lateral parts contain the inner portions of the optic lobes, which are partly homologous with 52 BRAIN hem^ the corpora bigemina of Mammals, and the optic thalami ; the dorsal roof forms the epiphysis or pineal gland, the corpus callosum and the anterior commissure, both of which consist of bundles of Avhite nerve fibres and connect the right with the left hemisphere. The ventral portion of the hemispheres consists of the corpora striata, which are masses of grey brain-substance, and of the olfactory lobes, which mark the anterior end of the brain. The central canal, which runs through the spinal cord, is con- tinued into the brain, and forms the fourth ventricle in the hind- brain, extending dorsally into the cerebellum ; and is then continued as " aquseductus Sylvii " through the midbrain, with lateral exten- sions into the optic lobes. The dilatation of this canal in the thalamencephalon is the third ventricle : it extends ventrally towards the hypophysis as the infundibulum, in a similar way Vertical section in the middle line through THE BRAIN OF A DuCK. Enlarged. (After H. F. Osborne.) J, Right olfactory nerve ; II, Right optic nerve and chiasma ; aam.. Anterior commissure ; cal. Corpus callosum ; cere6, Cerebel- lum ; It, Lamina termin- alis ; fm. Foramen Mon- ro! ; 7icm, Right hemi- sphere; 7i.p7i, Hypophysis ; inf, Infundibulum ; pc?ft, Posterior commissure ; •pn, Epiphysis or pineal gland. dorsally towards the epiphysis, and communicates through the foramen of Monro with the second and first ventricles ; these being the cavities of the two hemispheres. The hypophysis cerebri or pituitary body is lodged in the " sella turcica," a niche or recess formed by the antei'ior and posterior basisphenoid bones. This peculiar body is probably the degenerated remnant of a special sense-organ in the mouth of early Vertebrata, it being developed partly as an outgrowth from the roof of the mouth which fuses with a corresponding growth from the brain and then loses its connexion with the mouth. The epiphysis cerebri or pineal body is the remnant of a sense-organ, possibly visual, as it is still functional in many Lizards possessing a lens, a retina-like accumulation of black pigment and a nerve, but quite degenerated in all Birds and Mammals. The cerebellum of Birds is homologous only with the "worm" or middle portion of the ccrel)cllum of Mammals, the lateral lobes being absent, although a ])air of fiocculi are present. Externally it exhibits a number of transverse furrows, which divide it into BRAIN 53 lamellae. On a vertically longitudinal, or "sagittal," section, it has a beautiful tree -like appearance. From the walls of the central caAnty branch -like Avhite medullary iibres spread out, surrounded by a layer of reddish ganglionic cells, fol- lowed by larger ganglia (Purkinje's layer), and exter- nally covered by a grey mantle of smaller ganglionic cells. Such a thin section, especially when stained Avith carmine, forms a fascinating object for the microscope, and is easily made. The surface of the cerebral hemi- spheres in Birds exhibits no convol- utions or gyrations as in the higher ]\Iammals. In the Ratitae and in many Passeres the surface is entirely smooth, but in Swimmers, AVaders Pigeons Ventral view of the brain of a Goose. Twice natural size. -r^ T ' , ^. ' (After A. Meckel.) -cowls, and Birds- ^ ^^^ ^, , , . „ ., ,„ ^,. ' . I-XII, tlie twelve pairs of cranial nerves ; Ch. Chiasma of the OI-J: rey, there is a optic nerves cut across ; Fl. Flocculus ; H. Hypophysis ; L.o. very slio"ht furrow Opticlobe; Lq. Laqueus; F.S. Sylvian fissure; Si).I. First spinal which might be compared with the Sylvian fissure. There is also very little grey substance in the surface layers of the hemispheres. Various attemjDts have been made, by Tiedemann,^ Serres,^ Leuret,^ and Bumm,'* to compare the weight of the whole brain with that of the body, or 1 Anatoonie und NaturgeschicUe der V'ogel. Heidelberg: 1810, ^ Anatomie compar6e du cervemi. Paris : 1824. ^ Anatomie comjmree du systeme nerveux. Paris : 1839-57. ■* Das Grosshirn der Vogel. Zcitschr. fur wissensch. Zool. xxxviii. (1883) pp. 430-466, tabb. xxiv. -xxv. 54 BRAIN the weight of the hemispheres with that of other parts of the cen- tral nervous system, in order to draw conclusions as to the intelli- gence of various Birds. When Birds are arranged according to the preponderance of the hemispheres over the rest of the brain, the first place is taken by the Passeres and Parrots (2"7 or 2'0 to 1), then follow Geese, Ducks, Waders, and Birds -of -Prey, lastly Fowls and Pigeons, the proportions in the Common Domestic Pigeon being 0"95 to 1, i.e. the forebrain weighs less than the rest, Avhile in many Oscines it weighs nearly three times as much. The attempts to sort Birds according to the proportion of brain to body have led to no practical results, chiefly because the variable conditions of fat and lean subjects have not been considered. The absolute weight or mass alone of the brain is not a safe guide. There are twelve 'pairs, of cranial or brain-nerves which arise from the brain and leave the cranium through special holes. These pairs, as in other Classes of Vertebrates, are frequently spoken of by their number, counting from the nasal region backwards to the occiput. I. N. olfadoritis forms the anterior and ventral continuation of the hemisphere of its side, but arises in reality from ganglionic cells in the thalamencephalon and the midbrain. It leaves the cranial cavity through a canal in the dorsal and median part of the orbit and ends in the ganglionic cells of the olfactory membrane of the nose. II. N. opticus arises from the ganghonic cells of the mantle of the optic lobes. Immediately in front of the hypophysis is the optic chiasma, produced by the complete crossing of the fibres which compose the two optic nerves, those from the right optic lobe passing over the left, and those from the left lobe to the right side. From the chiasma start the right and left optic nerves, each leaving the cranium by the large optic foramen between the orbito- sphenoid and alisphenoid, entering the orbit near the posterior and ventral corner of the orbital septum and ultimately forming the retina of the eye. III. N. oculomotorius arises close behind the hypophysis, near the medio-ventral line, from the midbrain, enters the orbit behind or together with the optic nerve (II), and supplies most of the ex- ternal muscles of the eye, namely the m. rectus superior, inferior, internus, and obliquus inferior. A ciliary, partly sympathetic, branch supplies the eyeball and the internal muscles (see Eye). IV. N. trochlearis or ixdheticus is the only one which leaves the brain on its dorsal surface, namely as a thin thrend winding its way from the midl^rain upwards between the cerebellum and the optic lobes, and entering the orbit through a fine opening close to the optic nerve (II) in order to supply the m. obliquus superior of the eyeball. BRAIN 55 V. N. trige^ninus is next to the optic the thickest nerve, and of a complex nature, being motory and sensory. It arises from the sides of the mid- and hindbrain, forms the large Gasserian ganglion in the Avail of the cranium, and leaves the latter in the form of three branches. The first or ophthalmic branch comes directly out of the ganglion through a foramen behind the optic (II), runs along the dorsal corner of the orbital septum, and leaves the orbit at its inner anterior corner in order to supply the palate, the bill, fore- head, and the lacrymal gland. It is chiefly sensory, and con- sequently strongest in birds with tactile bills, like Ducks and Snipes. The second or upper maxillary branch runs along the A^entral edge of the orbital septum, and besides the palatine and maxillary regions supplies the eyelids and Harder's gland. The third or inferior maxillary branch is the strongest of the three ; it leaves the cranium together with the second through a foramen between the basi-alisphenoid and petrosal bones and innervates all the masticatory muscles, the parotid gland, and the whole of the under jaw. VI. N. ahclucens is a very thin nerve arising from the hindbrain near the medio-ventral line, entering the orbit through a special foramen latero-ventrally from the optic foramen, and supplying the m. rectus externus and the two muscles of the nictitating membrane. It is entii'ely motory. VII. N. facialis arises from the side of the hindbrain, possesses a ganglion (g. geniculatum), passes through the petrosal bone into the Fallopian canal, and sends the sympathetic sphenopalatine branch to the second branch of the trigeminal nerve (V). The facial nerve leaves the tympanic cavity behind the quadrate bone, supplies the digastric muscle or depressor of the mandible, the little stapedius muscle of the ear-bones, the mylo- and stylohyoid muscles of the tongue, and further on connects itself with branches from the first four cervical nerves and occasionally with branches from the glosso- pharyngeal nerve (IX), ultimately supplying the skin on the front of the neck. There are no branches, as in Mammals, to supply the face, nor is there in Birds a chorda tympani, i.e. a branch of the facial nerve joining the mandibular branch of the trigeminal nerve (V). VIII. N. amsticus arises dorsally from the facial nerve (VII), of which it is the sensory portion. It is very short and thick, possesses a little ganglion, and spreads out in the cochlea of the Ear as the nerve of hearing. IX. N. glossopharyngeus takes its origin from the dorso-lateral sides of the medulla oblongata, near the rhomboid fossa. It leaves the cranium through the foramen jugulare, which lies between the petrosal and the lateral occipital bones, and also serves as exit for the vagus nerve (X) and the jugular vein. Here the ninth nerve forms a big swelling, the ganglion jugulare, and is connected with the 56 BRAIN— BRAMBLE-FINCH ganglion of the vagus and with the large sympathetic g. cervicale supremum, receiving a strong branch from the stem of the vagus, and dividing into two branches : — One, the pharyngeal branch, sup- plying the upper portion of the pharynx and the gustatory papillae of the palate ; the other, or lingual branch, supplying the glottis, larynx, and the tongue, and acting chiefly as the nerve of taste. X. N. vagus or imeumogastricm arises behind the glossopha- ryngeal (IX), and passes likewise through the jugular foramen. Its ganglion is connected with that of the glossopharyngeal and with that of the sympathetic system. The stem of this nerve receives a branch from the hypoglossal (XII) and takes up the accessory (XI). It runs down the side of the oesophagus, enters the thoracic cavity between the brachial nerve plexus and the carotid artery, then passes between the bronchus and the subclavian artery to the ventral side of the proventriculus, and joining its fellow from the other side, spreads out to supply the stomach. Other branches leave the principal stem of each vagus at the level of the bronchi to supply the liver, heart, and lungs, and as the recurrent laryngeal branch also supply the distal portion of the trachea and oesophagus. Some fibres of the vagus often extend beyond the stomach, and are connected with the sympathetic nerves of the trunk, supplying part of the intestinal canal. XI. N. accessorius; a little nerve taking its origin between the dorsal and ventral roots of the third cervical nerve, runs upwards through the occipital foramen into the cranium, and joins the ganglion of the vagus (X), to leave the cranium with the latter and to supply the cucullaris muscle or constrictor colli. XII. N. hypoglossiis arises ventro- laterally from the medulla oblongata, and leaves the cranium by two foramina in the lateral occipital bone, in front of and sidewards from the occipital condyle. It supplies the m. complexus, forms a connecting loop with the first cervical nerve, innervates some of the cervical muscles, and divides into two branches — one of which supplies most of the muscles of the tongue and communicates with its fellow on the undersurface of the tongue, while the other innervates the muscles of the larynx, and then descends along the side of the trachea to the syrinx in order to supply the vocal muscles and membranes. BRAMBLE-FINCH or BRAMBLING (Germ. BramUng), names of one of the most beautiful of our annual visitors, Fringilla monti- fringilla, which has its home in the birch-forests of Northern Europe and Asia, whence it yearly proceeds, often in flocks of thousands, to pass the winter in more southern countries. It is congeneric with the Chaffinch, but is still more brightly coloured, especially in summer, when the brown edges of the feathers being shed, it presents a rich combination of black, Avhite, and orange. BRANT— BROADBILL 57 Even ill winter, however, its diversified plumage is sufficiently striking. BRANT or BRENT, Avords of doubtful etymology: the former spelling is most usually adopted by American, the latter by English authors, and in Britain the word GooSE is generally added. BREASTBONE, see Sternum. BRISTLE-BIRD, the name given by the colonists to three species of the genus Sphenura of Lichtenstein (as now restricted) which inhabit Australia, from the two or three pairs of strong recurved bristles which project laterally from the gape. They were formerly considered to belong to the Sylviidx ; but latterly, like many others, have been referred (chiefly on account of their short wings) to the Timeliiclse by Mr. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. Mus. \\\. p. 104). Their true position seems yet to be determined. They mostly conceal themselves in thickets, especially in marshy places, flying very little, but running very cj^uickly, and carrying the tail erect. The nest is built of dry grass, globular in form, and is of large size. S. hrmhyptera, the tyjDe of the genus, inhabits New South Wales, and the two others, S. longirostris and S. broadhenti, are found in Western Australia and the interior of South Australia respectively. Allied to Sj^henura is Amytis, with 3 or 4 species, also Australian, someAvhat Wren-like in form, and having the gape beset with five pairs of bristles, which, however, are directed more forwardly, and are weaker. BROADBILL, Swainson's name, appropriate as will be seen by the figure, in 1837 (Classif. B. ii. p. SO), for a remarkable group of birds comprehending the genus Eunjlxiims of Horsfield {Trans. Linn. Soc. xiii, p. 170) and some allied forms, all inhabiting the Indian Region, and especially developed in Malacca, Java, Su- matra, and Borneo ; but found also in the elevated part of India, eueyl.i:mus. Calyptomena. ^ , T , .1 (After Swainson.) and extendmg to the Philippines. The position of this group, which was in 1842 recognized by Baron de Selys-Longchamps as forming a good Family, Eunjlmmidm, had long been doubtful, some authors regard- ing it as allied to the Muscicapidx (Ely-catcher), others to the Coraciidse (Roller), and so forth. By degrees what seems to 5 8 BRONCHI— BR UBR U be its true place as belonging to the Oligomyodi, as that term is used in this work ; but the Eurylsemidx, so far as they have been examined, differ from all other Passeres in " their retention of a plantar vinculum," as first noticed by Garrod {Proc. Zool. Soc. 1877, p. 449), which fact led W. A. Forbes to propose for them further separation as Desmodactyli {ojj. cit. 1880, p. 390). But what seems to be a stronger reason for separating them is that, as Mr. Sclater had already shewn (Ibis, 1872, p. 179), the manubrium, or anterior projection of the sternum, is not forked as in other Passeres. According to him in 1888 {Cat. B. Br. If us. xiv. pp. 454-470) the Eurylsemida} comprehend two subfamilies, Calypto- meninx, consisting of the genus Calyptomena only, and Eurtjlxminas, containing six genera, two of which, Psarisomus and Serilophus,'^ are found in India, while examples of all the rest, the Philippine Sarco- phanops excepted, occur in British territory further to the eastward. They are nearly all birds of great beauty, and the two species of Cahjptomena are remarkable for their rich green plumage, and the way in which the frontal feathers project upwards and forwards, so as almost to conceal the bill, and being adpressed form a disk-like prominence. They are frugivorous, but the Eunjlseminm seem to be insectivorous. Not much is recorded of their habits, but they are said to be stupid, songless birds, and usually keep in small flocks. {Cf. Gates, B. Br. Burmah, i. pp. 422-431.) BRONCHI, adj. bronchial, from (3p6yxos, the windpipe. The thoracic end of the Trachea is divided into a right and a left bronchus. Each bronchus enters the lung of its side and passes through its whole length as mesobronchium, from which go off about 10 secondary bronchi towards the surface of the LuNG. In almost all birds — the exceptions being the Cathartid^e, true Storks, and Steatornis — the bronchi are strengthened by cartilaginous semii'ings ; the ends of these rings point towards the median line, and are closed by the inner tympaniform membrane. The right and left membranes are connected with each other by an elastic band, called bronchidesmus. All the rings which partake of the formation of the pessulus of the trachea belong to the latter, the pessulus thus marking the beginning of the bronchi (see also Trachea and Syrinx). BRONZE- WING, the name given in Australia to several species of Pigeon belonging to the genera or so-called genera Phaps, Geopjliaps, LopJiophaps, and Ocifphaps, from the lustrous coppery or bronze-like spots they display on their wings. BRUBRU, the name (apparently originating with Levaillant) of a conspicuously-coloured Shrike, the Nilaus hrubru or N. capensis of modern ornithology. ^ The style of plumage in this genus recalls that of Ampelis (Waxwing), but no alliiiity thereto can be thought to exist. BR USH- TURKE Y—B ULB UL 59 BRUSH-TUEKEY, the Australian name for one of the largest of the Megapodes, Talegallus lathami, which has frequently made its mound, laid its eggs, and reared its young in the Zoological Gardens, after the manner described many years ago by Mr. Bart- lett (Pwc. Zool. SoG. 1860, pp. 426, 427). In earlier dsijs the position of this bird was a great puzzle to some ornitholo- gists, who thou2;ht from the form of Talegallus. (After Swainson.) its bill that it was a Bird-of-Prey, and called it the " New-Holland Vulture." BUDJERIGAE, (spelling doubtful) a corruption of Betckerrygah, given by Gould as the native name of the pretty little Australian Parrakeet, Melopsittaciis undidatus, that is now so favourite a cage-bird. Its name has of late been still further corrupted into Beauregard ! BUFFLE-HEAD (i.e. Buffalo-head) a North- American species of Duck, Clangula albeola, allied to the Golden-eye. BULBUL, from the Arabic through the Persian, in the poetry of which language it plays a great part, and is generally rendered "Nightingale" by translators, and rightly so according to Blyth (Calcutta Review, No. Iv. March 1857, p. 153), who says that it "is a species of true Nightingale." In this case it is probably that named Daulias hafizi, in honour of the great Persian j)oet.^ But whatever may have been originally intended, and Yule says Pycnonotus. (After Swainson.) Phyllostrephus. (Hohson-Jobson) that the name is derived from the bird's note, the word has for a good many years been applied by Anglo- Indians to various species, all or nearly all of which belong to a group Ixidx (otherwise Brachyj^odidm, so-called from their short legs), and usually referred to the ill-defined "Family" Timeliida}. Of this group the latest authority, Mr. Gates {Faun. Br. India, Birds, ■^ Cf. Blanford, Zool. and Geol. Persia, p. 169, pi. x. fig. 2 ; and Dresser, Ibis, 1875, p. 338. 6o BULLFINCH— BUNTING i. pp. 253, 254), makes sixteen genera, one of them, Molpastes, being that which he considers to contain what may be called the genuine Bulbuls, formerly included in the genus Pycnonotus, but since separated therefrom, on characters, however, which seem to be of the slightest. No fewer than nine species are now recognized as inhabiting various parts of the Indian Empire and Ceylon, that found in Bengal and to the northward, M. pygseus or bengalensis, being perhaps the best known, but Madras, the Punjab, Burma, and Tenasserim have each its own form or species. They are said to be familiar garden-birds, and are usually common, going about in pairs with a melodious chirping. BULLFINCH, doubtless so called from the thickness of its head and neck, when compared with other members of the Family Fringillidm (Finch), to which it belongs — the familiar bird, Pyrrkula europsea, -which hardly needs description. The varied plumage of the cock — his bright red breast and his grey back, set off by his coal- black head and quills — is naturally attractive ; while the facility with which he is tamed, and his engaging disposition in con- finement, make him a popular cage-bird, — to say nothing of the fact (which in the opinion of so many adds to his charms) of his readily learning to " pipe " a tune, or some bars of one, though this perversion of his natural notes is hardly agreeable to the orni- thologist. By gardeners the Bullfinch has long been regarded as a deadly enemy, from its undoubted destruction of the buds of fruit-trees in spring-time, though whether the destruction is really so much of a detriment is by no means undoubted. Northern and Eastern Europe is inhabited by a larger form, P. major, which differs in nothing but size and more vivid tints from that which' is common in the British Isles and Western Europe. A very distinct species, P. muriiia, remarkable for its dull coloration, is peculiar to the Azores, and several others are found in Asia from the Himalayas to Japan. More recently a Bullfinch, P. cassini, has been discovered in Alaska, being the first recognition of this genus in the New World. (Cf. Stejneger, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 1887, pp. 103-110.) BULLHEAD and BULLSEYE, names applied chiefly in Ireland and North America to the Golden and Grey Plovers ; but the former also given locally to the Golden-eye. BUNTING, Old English " Buntyle," Scottish " Buntlin," a word of uncertain origin,^ properly the common English name of the bird ^ Prof. Skeat {Etymol. Diet.) has suggested a connexion M-ith the ohi verb, still extant as a dialectic form, huntcn = to butt ; but this is not very apparent. He has also cited the Scottish word buniin = short and thick, or plump, wliich, however, seems as likely to have been derived from the bird, for the clumsy BUNTING 61 called by Linni'eus Emherka miliaria, but now used in a general sense for all members of the Family Emherizidx, which are closely allied to the Fringillidse (Finch). The Buntings generally may be out- wardly distinguished from the Finches by their angular gape, the posterior portion of which is greatly deflected ; and most of the Old-AVorld forms, together with some of those of the New World, have a bony knob on the palate — a swollen out growth of the dentary edges of the bill. Correlated with this peculiarity the maxilla usually has the tomia sinuated, and is generally concave, and smaller and narrower than the mandible, which is also concave to receive the palatal knob. In most other respects the Buntings greatly resemble the Finches, but their eggs are generally distinguishable by the irregular hair-like markings on the shell. In the British Islands by far the commonest species of Bunting is the Yellow Hammer, E. citrinella, but the true Bunting (or Corn- Bunting, or Bunting-Lark, as it is called in some districts) is a very well known bird, while the Reed-Bunting, E. schceniclus, frequents marshy soils almost to the exclusion of the two former. In certain localities in the south of England the Cirl-Bunting, E. drills, is also a resident ; and in winter vast flocks of the Snow- Bunting, PledropJianes nivalis, at once recognizable by its pointed wings and elongated hind- claws, resort to our shores and open grounds. This last breeds sparingly on the highest mountains of Scotland, the fact being placed beyond doubt by the discovery of a nest and young in 1886 by Messrs. B. N. Peach and L. N. Hinxman, as briefly recorded soon after by Mr. Harvie-Brown {Zoologist, 1886, p. 336), and with full details in the Vertebrate Faurwb of Sutherland by that gentleman and Mr. Buckley (pp. 138-143, pi.); but the flocks which visit us come from northern regions, for it is a species which in summer inhabits the whole circumpolar area. The Ortolan, E. hortulana, so highly prized for its delicate flavour, occasionally appears in England, but this island lies outside its proper range. On the continent of Europe, in Africa, and throughout Asia, many other species are found, while in America the number belonging to the Family cannot at present be computed. As already stated, the beautiful and melodious Cardinal, Cardinalis virginianus, often called the Virginian Nightingale, probably has to be included in this Family, but doubts exist as to the Bobolink, though it is commonly known as the Rice- Bunting. Whether any species of Emherizidse inhabit the Austra- lian Region is yet to be proved ; but it would seem possible that several genera of Australian birds hitherto classed with the Frin- gillidai may have to be assigned to the Emherizidse. figure of tlie true Bunting is very evident to any observer. Any connexion with the German lunt or the Dutch honte ( = pied or variegated) is said to be most unlikely. 62 B URRO W-D UCK—B US TARD BURROW-DUCK, a common local name of the Sheld-drake. BUSTARD (corrupted from the Latin Ams tarda, though the application of the epithet ^ is not easily understood), the largest British land-fowl, and the Otis tarda of Linnseus, which formerly frequented the champaign parts of Great Britain from East Lothian to Dorset, but of which the native race is now extirpated. Its existence in the northern locality just named rests upon Sihbald's authority {circa 1684), and though Hector Boethius (1526) unmistakably described it as an inhabitant of the Merse, no later Avriter than the former has adduced any evidence in favour of its Scottish domicile. The last examples of the native race were probably two killed in 1838 near Swaffham, in Norfolk, a district in which for some years previously a few hen-birds of the species, the remnant of a plentiful stock, had maintained their existence, though .no cock-bird had latterly been known to bear them company. In Suffolk, where the neighbourhood of Icklingham formed its chief haunt, an end came to the race in 1832 ; on the wolds of Yorkshire about 1826, or perhaps a little later; and on those of Lincolnshire about the same time. Of Wiltshire, Montagu, writing in 1813, says that none had been seen in their favourite haunts on Salisbury Plain for the last two or three years. In Dorset there is no evidence of an indigenous example having occurred since that date, nor in Hampshire nor Sussex within the present century. From other English counties, as Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, and Berkshire, it disappeared without note being taken of the event, and the direct cause or causes of its extermina- tion can only be inferred from what, on testimony cited by Mr. Stevenson {Birds of Norfolk, ii. pp. 1-42), is known to have led to the same result in Norfolk and Suffolk. In the latter the extension of plantations rendered the country unfitted for a bird whose shy nature could not brook the growth of covert that might shelter a foe, and in the former the introduction of improved agricultural implements, notably the corn-drill and the horse-hoe, led to the discovery and generally the destruction of every nest, for the bird's chosen breeding-place was in wide fields — " brecks," as they are locally called, — of winter-corn. Since the extirpation of the native race the Bustard is knoAvn to Great Britain onlj^ by occasional wanderers, straying most likely from the open country of Champagne or Saxony, and occurring in one part or another of the United Kingdom some two or three times every three or four years, and chiefly in midwinter. An adult male will measure nearly four feet from the tip of the bill to the end of the tail, and its Avings have an expanse of ■* It may bo open to doubt whetbor tardais, here au adjective. Several of the mediieval naturalists used it as a substantive. BUSTARD 63 eight feet or more — its weight varying (possibly through age) from 22 to 32 pounds. This last Avas that of one which occurred Cock Bustard. (After Wolf.) to the younger Naumann, the best biographer of the bird [Vogel Deidschlands, vii. pp. 12-51), who, however, stated in 1834 that Cock Bustard. (After Wolf.) he Avas assured of the former existence of examples which had weighed from 35 to 38 pounds. The female is considerably smaller. Compared Avith most other birds frequenting open places 64 BUSTARD the Bustard has disproportionately short legs, yet the bulk of its body renders it a conspicuous and stately object, and when on the wing, to which it readily takes, its flight is not inferior in majesty to that of an Eagle. The bill is of moderate length, but, owing to the exceedingly flat head of the bird, appears longer than it really is. The neck, especially of the male in the breeding-season, is thick, as shewn in the first figure, and the tail, in the same sex at that time of year, is generally carried in an upright position, being, however, in the paroxysms of courtship turned forwards, Avhile the head and neck are simultaneously retracted along the back, the wings are lowered, and their shorter feathers erected. In this posture, which has been admirably por- trayed by Mr. Wolf (Zool. Sketches, pi. 45), the bird presents, as will be seen by the second figure, a very strange appearance, for the tail, head, and neck are almost buried amid the upstand- ing feathers before named, and the breasts are protruded to a remarkable extent. The Bustard is of a pale grey on the neck and white beneath, but the back is beautifully barred with russet and black, while in the male, at the height of the breeding-season, a band of deep tawny-brown — in some examples approaching a claret-colour — descends from either shoulder and forms a broad gorget on the breast. The secondaries and greater wing-coverts are white, contrasting vividly, as the bird flies, with the black primaries. Both sexes have the ear-coverts somewhat elongated — whence doubtless is derived the name Otis (Gr. wrts) — and the male is adorned with a tuft of long, white, bristly plumes, springing from each side of the base of the mandible. The food of the Bustard consists of almost any of the plants natural to the open country it loves, but in winter it "will readily forage on those which are grown by man, and especially coleseed and similar green crops. To this vegetable diet much animal matter is added when occasion ofl"ers, and from an earthworm to a field-mouse little that lives and moves seems to come amiss to its appetite. Though not many birds have had more written about them than the Bustard, much remains to be determined with regard to its economy. A moot point, which will most likely always remain undecided, is whether the British race was migratory or not, though that such is the habit of the species in most parts of the European continent is beyond dispute. Equally uncertain as yet is the question whether it is polygamous or not — the evidence being perhaps in favour of its having that nature. But one of the most singular properties of the bird is the presence in some of the fully-grown males of a pouch or gular sack, opening under the tongue. This extraordinary feature, first discovered by James Douglas, a Scotch physician, and made known by Albin BUSTARD 65 in 1740, though its existence was hinted by Sir Thomas Browne sixty years before, if not by the Emperor Frederick II, has been found wanting in examples that, from the exhibition of all the outward marks of virility, were believed to be thoroughly mature ; and as to its function and mode of development judgment had best be suspended, with the understanding that the old supposi- tion of its serving as a receptacle whence the bird might supply itself or its companions with water in dry places must be deemed to be wholly untenable. The structure of this pouch — the existence of which in some examples has been well established — is, how- ever, variable ; and though there is reason to believe that in one form or another it is common in the breeding-season to several species of the Family Otididai, it would seem to be as inconstant in its occurrence as in its capacity. As might be expected, this remarkable feature has attracted a good deal of attention {Journ. fur Omith. 1861, p. 153; 1862, p. 135; Ibis, 1862, p. 107; 1865, p. 143 ; Proc. Zool. Soc. 1865, p. 747 ; 1868, p. 471 ; 1869, p. 140 ; 1874, p. 471), and the researches of Garrod, the latest investi- gator of the matter, shew that in an example of the Australian Bustard, Otis australis, examined by him there was, instead of a pouch or sack, simply a highly dilated oesophagus — the distention of which, at the bird's will, produced much the same appearance and effect as that of the undoubted sack found at times in the 0. tarda. The distribution of the Bustards is confined to the Old World — the bird so-called in the Fur-Countries of North America, and thus giving its name to a lake, river, and cape, being the Canada Goose, Bernida canadensis. In the Palsearctic area we have the 0. tarda already mentioned, extending from Spain to Mesopo- tamia at least, and from Scania to Morocco, as well as a smaller species, 0. tetrax, which often occurs as a straggler in, but was never an inhabitant of, the British Islands. Two species, known indifferently by the name of Houbara (derived from the Arabic), frequent the more southern portions of the area. One of them, 0. houbara, inhabits Mauritania and even some of the Canary Islands, while the other, 0. macqueeni, though having the more eastern range and reaching India, has several times occurred in ISTorth-Avestern Europe, and once even in England. In the east of Siberia the j^lace of 0. tarda is taken by the nearly-allied, but apparently distinct, 0. dybovskii, which would seem to occur also in Northern China. Africa is the chief stronghold of the Family, nearly a score of well- marked species being peculiar to that continent, all of which have been by later systematists separated from the genus Otis. India, too, has three peculiar species, the smaller of which are there known as Floricans, and, like some of their African and one if not both of their European cousins, are remarkable for the ornamental 5 66 BUTCHER-BIRD— BUZZARD plumage they assume at the breeding-season. Neither in Mada- gascar nor in the Malay Archipelago is there any form of this Family, but Australia possesses one large species already named. From Xenophon's days (Anah. i. 5) to our own, the flesh of Bustards has been esteemed as of the highest flavour. The Bustard has long been protected by the game-laws in Great Britain, but, as will have been seen, to little purpose. A few attempts have been made to reinstate it as a denizen of this country, but none on any scale that would ensure success. Many of the older authors considered the Bustards allied to the Ostrich, a most mistaken view, their affinity pointing apparently towards the Cranes in one direction and the Plovers in another. The so- called Thick-kneed Bustard is the Stone-CURLEW. BUTCHER-BIRD, a name that seems at one time to have been in general use, though latterly usurped, except locally, by Shrike, which last was probably applied by mistake. The former takes its origin from the bird's habit of impaling its prey on a thorn while eating it, and leaving the remains there to decay. A place suitable for this purpose is often used many times, and, reminding people of a butcher's shambles, induced the English name, as well as the Latin Lanius, conferred, it would appear, by Gesner. The habit is carried out when the bird is kept in confinement, for it will then fix its food to the wires of its cage. One species, L. excuUtor, derives its trivial designation from the use made of it as a sentinel by falconers when catching wild Hawks. The mode employed is well described by Hoy {Mag. Nat. Hist. iv. p. 342), but can be only briefly mentioned here. The Hawk-catcher lies hidden in a hut, watching through a small hole the Butcher-bird, which is tethered some yards oft', and by its actions not only gives him notice of the approach of a Bird- of-Prey, but also indicates of what kind the stranger is. Thus the sentinel is but slightly troubled at a passing Kite, Eagle, or Buzzard ; but beats itself on its perch with screams at the sight of a Harrier, while on the appearance of a Falcon or Sparrow-Hawk it drops with cries of distress into a retreat that has been consider- ately prepared for it. On this the falconer, by pulling long strings, displays first one and then a second tethered Pigeon, and the instant the Hawk clutches this last, draws a bow-net over both, thus securing his prize. BUTTON -QUAIL, the Anglo-Indian name for a little bird, Turnix syJcesi, and one if not more of its congeners, which, though for a long while confounded with the true Quails, really belong to a very distinct group, Turnicidx, and may be more conveniently treated under the title of Hemipode. BUZZARD, a word derived from the Latin Butco, through the French Busard, and used in a general sense for a large group of BUZZARD 67 Buzzard. (After Swainson.) Diurnal Birds-of-Pre}'^, which contains, among many others, the species usually kncwai as the Common Buzzard, Buteo vulgaris, of Leach, though the English epithet is nowadays hardly applicable. The name Buzzard, however, belongs quite as rightfully to the birds called in books "Harriers," and by it one of them, the Moor-Buzzard, Circus aeruginosas, is still known in such places as it inhabits. "Puttock" is also another name used in some parts of the country, but perhaps is rather a synonym of the Kite, Milvus idinus. Though ornitho- logical writers are almost unani- mous in distinguishing the Buz- zards as a group from the Eagles, the grounds usually assigned for their separation are but slight, and the diagnostic character that can be best trusted is probably that in the former, as the figure shews, the bill is decurved from the base, while in the latter it is for about a third of its length straight. The head, is short and round, while in the Eagles a general Avay Buzzards are smaller than are several exceptions to this statement, and have their plumage more mottled. Furthermore, most if not all of the Buzzards, about which anything of the kind is with certainty known, assume their adult dress at the first moult, while the Eagles take a longer time to reach maturity. The Buzzards are fine -looking birds, but are slow and heavy of flight, so that in the old days of falconry they were regarded with infinite scorn, and hence in common English to call a man a " buzzard " is to denounce him as stupid. Their food consists of small mammals, young birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects — particularly beetles — and thus they never could have been very injurious to the game-preserver, though they have fallen under his ban, if indeed they were not really his friends ; but at the present day they are so scarce that in this country their effect, whatever it may be, is inappreciable. Buzzards are found over the whole world with the exception of the Australian Region, and have been split into many genera by systematists. In the British Islands we have two species, one (the B. vulgaris already mentioned) resident, and now almost confined to a few of the wilder districts ; the other the Rough-legged Buzzard, Archihuteo lagopus, an irregular Avinter-visitant, sometimes arriving in large bands from the north of Europe, and readily distinguishable from the former by being feathered down to the toes. The Honey-Buzzard, Fernis apivoriis, a summer-visitor from the south, and breeding, or attempting to too, in the Buzzards it is elongated. In Eagles, though there B UZZARD—C^CA breed, yearly in the New Forest, does not come into the sub- family Buteoninx, but is probably the tj'pe of a distinct group, Ferninse,^ of which there are other examples in Africa and Asia. The so-called "Turkey-Buzzard" is one of the American Vultures. c C^CA, a pair of blindsacs or lateral dilatations of the gut, marking the beginning of the rectum. When the caeca are large the rectum is shut off from the ileum or small intestine by a valvular sphincter, which allows the fsecal matter to ascend from the rectum into the cseca, but prevents it from passing back into the ileum. The cseca vary extremely in size in the dilferent groups of Birds ; they attain their greatest size in those that are herbivorous, are small or hardly functional in most that live on animal food, and are altogether absent in fruit- and grain-eaters. There are, however, so many exceptions to this broad generalisation, that an enumeration is advisable, especially since a certain taxonomic value cannot be denied to these organs. It is highly probable that originally all Birds possessed cseca, and that, according to the diet, these were either further developed or reduced in size or even lost ultimately. Hence the mere presence of cseca in a bird is of less taxonomic value than their state of development ; they are either functional, or without func- tion ; their absence is only the last step of their degeneration. 1. The caeca are large and of great functional importance in Struthio, Ehea, Apteryx, Crypturi, Gallince, Pteroclidae, Grallae, and Anseres, i.e. in birds which are chiefly herbivorous ; also in many worm-eating Limicolae, for instance in the Avoset, Lap'W'ing, Ringed Plover, (Edicnemus, Thinocorys, Attagis, and the Corncrake ; lastly in the Owls, Nightjars, Rollers, Bee-eaters, and Cuckoos, i.e. birds which, Avith the exception of the first group, are strictly insectivorous. 2. The caeca are distinctly functional, but comparatively short, in Casuarius, Dromaeus, Grus, Turnix, many Anatidre (vegetable- eaters with a great predilection for animal food), Limicolas and Rallidae, like the Golden Plover, Numenius, Totanus, Gallinago, Chionis, Porphyrio, Porzana ; the piscivorous Spheniscid;v, Peli- canus, Podicipes, Uria, Colymbus ; Mcrops, and Phaniicopterus. 3. The caeca are quite degenerated and functionlcss, being either {a) reduced to small wartlike or vermiform appendages, as in some Spheniscidae, Herodii, Pelargi, Steganopodes, Laridae, Strep- 1 The name Pcj-n/s was given in 1817 by Cuvier {E^gnc Anim. i. p. 322), who said it was used by Aristotle ; but the hitter lias only irTipvi£ (Hist. Anim. ix. 36). CyECA 69 silas, Limosa, Scolopax, Parra, Rhinochetus, many Columbae, Acci- pitres, and Passeres ; or (b) they are entirely absent, as in many Columbiie, Psittaci, Musopliaga, Corythaix, Pici, Alcedinidae, Bucero- tida^, UpupidiTe, Colius, Cypselidse, and Trochilidse. 4. Sometimes one cfBoum remains in a rudimentary condition and the other one has disappeared ; this is the rule in almost all Herodii and in Procellaria, but occasionally met with in Steganopodes, Podicipes, Strepsilas, and in Atrichia. The greatest development of the caeca occurs in Struthio, Rhea, Tinamus, and Meleagris, their aggregate volume equalling or even surpassing that of the rest of the intestinal canal, the cseca in these cases, especially in Ratitae, shewing numerous transverse constric- tions and sacculations, which increase the absorbing surface. A certain correlation exists between the cseca and the length and width of the rectum. The examples enumerated above seem to shew that caeca are not required for the digestion of meat, fruit, and grain. Fish-eating Ducks have considerably shorter caeca than their strictly vegetarian relations ; the same remark applies to those Waders which live upon moUusks and other soft-bodied invertebrates. On the other hand, the well-developed caeca of Coracias, Caprimulgus, Merops, Cuculus, and those of the likewise insectivorous Todies and Bee-eaters, make it not improbable that in the caeca not only cellulosis (as in Mam- malia) but also chitine is digested. Lastly, the presence or absence of the caeca being thus explained by the food, a clew "will occasionally be afforded to the systematic position of birds in which they appear against reasonable expectation. It is clear that change of diet may be accomplished in a much shorter time than it takes to modify the various digestive organs. For instance, the exclusive meat-diet of the Birds-of-Prey has reduced their caeca to mere rudiments, and it is more than improbable that the insectivorous habits of many of the smaller Falconidae will ever redevelop these organs, especially since these birds throw out the indigestible j)arts in pellets. Owls now cannot be distinguished from Diurnal Birds-of-Prey by their diet ; they possess large caeca, and cannot therefore be derived from the Accipitres, which have lost them, nor is it probable that Owls and Accipitres came from one common stock and are collateral branches, because in this case both would be of equal age, and we should have to assume that the meat- diet had in one branch suppressed and in the other branch preserved or even increased the caeca. We can only conclude that the Owls are descendants of a stock of birds which, like the Nightjars, lived on chitinous insects (Beetles, Moths), and that they, like Podargus, as shown by its predilection for mice, comparatively recently took to the flesh of vertebrates. As might be expected, the members of any large and much -JO CALANDER—CANAR Y-BIRD diversified group of birds, like "Waders, Pigeons, Spheniscidae, and otliers, have cjeca in various stages of development, but it would be a hopeless attempt to explain this diversity in particular instances by reference to the preponderance of animal over vegetable diet, of which in Avild birds we know so very little. CALANDER (" Chalaundre " and " Chelaundre," Chaucer, Rommmt of the Bme), Fr. Calandre, and Ital. Calandra, both from the Latin caliendrum (a head-dress of false hair), a species of Lark, the Alaitda calandrct of Linnaeus, and the Melanocorypha calmidra of later writers, described by Willughby after Olina, and figured by Edwards {Gleanings, pi. 268) as coming from- Carolina, a curious mistake, for the bird is not American, but a well-knoAvn inhabitant of Europe, though no proof of its occurrence in Britain has been given. It may easily be recognized by its large size, thick bill, and interrupted black collar. CALAO, the name under which some old writers Avrote of the HORNBILLS ; generally adopted for them in French, and found also in scientific nomenclature. CALAW or CALLOO— generally followed by "Duck"— a Shetland name of the Long-tailed Duck. CALICO-BIRD, one of the many names given to the Turn- stone on the east coast of North America (Trumbull, Names and Porir. of B. p. 186). CAMPEPHAGA (Caterpillar -eater), the scientific name of a genus of birds bestowed by Vieillot, and anglified by Gould for certain Australian forms, "which, if notbelonging to the LaniidcV (Shrike), are ap^Darently in- termediate be- tween that Family and the Corvidx (Crow). By some Avriters they are regarded as a separate group, Campephagida?, to Avhich are attached several other forms that inhabit not only Australia, but the Indian and Ethioi)ian Regions. This view will very likely prove correct ; but it would 1)e at j)resent premature to trace the limits of the group, of which Ceblepi/ris may be an extreme example. One of their characteristics is the stiffened shaft of the rump-feathers, so as to feel sj)inous to the touch (rf. also Oxynotus). CANARY-BIRD, a Finch so-called from the islands whence it was apparently first brought, the Fringilla canaria of Linnaeus, and Campephaga. Ceblepyris. (After Swaiuson.) CANARY-BIRD 71 Serinus caiiarius of modern ■\vi-iters, which has long been the com- monest of cage-birds throughout the world. It abounds not only in the islands whence it has its name, but in the neighbouring groups of the Madeu-as and Azores. It seems to have been imported into Europe very early in the sixteenth century. Turner in 1544 speaks of the birds " quas Anglia aues canarias uocat " ; a statement confirmed by the poet Gascoigne, who died in 1577, and speaks {Complaint of Philomene, 1. 33) of "Canara byrds." Gesner had not seen one in 1555, but he gave an account of it [Ornithol. p. 234), communicated to him by Eaphael Seller of Augsburg, under the name of Suckeruogele. The wild stock is of an olive-green, mottled with dark brown, above, and gi-eenish - yellow beneath. All the bright-hued examples we now see in captivity have been induced by carefully breeding from any chance varieties that have shewn themselves ; and not only the colour, but the build and stature of the bird have in this manner been greatly modified. The change must have begun early, for Hernandez, who died in 1587, described the bird {Hist. Anim. Nov. Bisp. cap. xxviii. p. 20) as being wholly yellow (tota lutea) except the end of its wings. ^ Of late the ingenuity of "the fancy," which might seem to have exhausted itself in the production of topknots, feathered feet, and so forth, has brought about a still further change from the original type. It has been found that by a particular treatment, in which the mixing of large quantities of cayenne-pepper with the food plays an important part, the ordinary " canary yellow " may be intensified so as to verge upon a more or less brilliant flame colour. Bu"ds which have successfully undergone this forcing process, and are hence called " hot canaries," command a very high price, for a large proportion die under the discipline, though it is said that they soon become exceedingly fond of the exciting condiment. But it is impossible here to treat of this species in its domesticated state. A small library of books has been written on the subject.^ Very nearly resembling the Canary-bird, but smaller in size, is the Serin, Serinus hortulanus, a species which not long since was very local in Europe, and chiefly known to inhabit the countries bordering on the Mediterranean. It has of late years pushed its way towards the north, and has even been several times taken in England (Yarrell's Brit. Birds, ed. 4, ii. pp. 111-116). A closely allied species, S. canonims, is peculiar to Palestine. In many different parts of the world the word " Canary " is ^ This book was not published till 1631, and of course there is a possibility of the passage being an interpolation, but I know no reason to suspect it. ^ Those most to be commended are perhaps The Canary Book by Robert L. Wallace, Canaries and Cage Birds by AV. A. Blackston, and of course Darwin's Animals and Plants under Domestication (i. p. 295). An excellent monograph of the wild bird is that by Dr. Carl BoUe {Journ. fiir Orn. 1858, pp. 125-151). CANVAS-BACK— CAPERCALL Y applied to almost any small bird that is yellow, and not unfrequently to some that are not. Thus in the Antilles the name is given to certain species of Dendrceca (Warbler), in the Cape Colony to Serinus canicoUis, the " Cape Canary," and some of the Ploceidse (Weaver-bird),^ in New Zealand to the Clitomjx ochrocephala, while in some districts of Australia the BUDJERIGAR is knoAvii as the " Canary-Parrot." CANVAS-BACK, generally A\-ith the addition of "Duck," the Anas vallisneria of Wilson, Fuligula or JEthyia vallisneriana of modern ornithology, the North-American bird so famous for its delicate flavour — nearly allied to the Pochard. CAPERCALLY or CAPERCAILLIE, a word commonly derived from the Gaelic CapuU, a horse (or, more jDroperly, a mare), and Coille, the genitive of coll, a wood ; but \^^th greater likelihood, according to the opinion "vvith which I was favoured by Dr. M'Lauchlan, from Cabher, an old man (and, by metaphor, an old bird), and Coille — the name of the largest species of Tetraonklm (Grouse), Tetrao urogallus, which was formerly indigenous to the north of England, to Scotland, and to Ireland. The word is frequently spelt othermse, as Capercalze and Capercailzie (the z, a letter unknown in Gaelic, being pronounced like y), and the English name of Wood-Grouse or Cock-of-the-wood has been often applied to the same bii'd. The earliest notice of it as an inhabitant of North Britain seems to be by Hector Boethius, whose works were published in 1526, and it can then be traced through various Scottish writers, though to them it was evidently but little known, for about 200 years, or may be more.- However, Bishop Lesly, in 1578, assigned a definite habitat to it: — "In Eossia quoque Louquhabria [Lochaber], atque aliis montanis locis " {De Origine Moribus et rebus gestis Scotorum. Romae : ed. 1675, p. 24). Taylor, the water-poet, in his Visit to the Brea of Marr (JForh, London: 1630, p. 135) mentions, " caperkellies " among the meats provided for the guests of Lord Erskine in 1618; and The Mack Book of Taymouth tells (pp. 433, 434) of one that was sent in 1651 by the laird of Glenorchy to King Charles II, who, being then at Perth, "aceei^ted it weel as a raretie, for he had never seen any of them." Pennant, during his first tour in Scotland, found that it was then (1769) still to be met with in Glen Moriston and in the Chisholm's country, whence he saw a cock-bird. We may infer that it became extinct about that time, since Robert Gray {Birds of the JFest of Scotland, p. 229) quotes the Rev. John Grant ^ A species of Laniarius, one of the Shrikes, credited ■\vitli preying upon some of these little birds, is known as Canarichyter (Layard, B. S. Afr. p. 164). - For particulars the reader is referred to Mr. Harvie-Brown's careful volume The CapercaiUie in Scotland (Edinburgh : 1879). CAPERCALL V 73 as writing in 1794 : — "The last seen in Scotland was in the woods of Strathglass about thirty-two years ago."^ Of its existence in Ireland we have scarcely more details. If we may credit the Pavones splvestres of Giraldus Cambrensis with being of this species, it was once abundant there, and AVillughby (1678) was told that it was kno^^^l in that kingdom as the " Cock-of-the-wood." A few other ^mters mention it by the same name, and Eutty, in 1772, says {Nat. Hist. Dublin, i. p. 302) that "one was seen in the county of Leitrim about the year 1710, but they have entirely disappeared of late, by reason of the destruction of our woods." Pennant also states that about 1760 a few were to be found about Thomastown in Tipperary, but no later evidence is forthcoming, and thus it would seem that the species was exterminated at nearly the same period both in Ireland and Scotland. That the Cock-of-the-wood once inhabited England is a dis- covery of recent date. It is stated in The Zoologist for 1879 (p. 468) that its bones had been found among Roman remains at Settle in Yorkshire, though the authority for their determination is not given; but the present writer had the pleasure of receiving from Mr. James Backhouse a considerable number of its bones, some of them unmistakable, found by him in caves that he was investigating in Teesdale, and of confirming the conclusion at which he had ali'eady arrived. The remains were those of both sexes, and were sufiiciently numerous to shew that the species had been common in the neighbourhood, and had contributed not a little to the food of the people who in a prehistoric age used the caves as dwellings. When the practice of planting was introduced, the restoration of this fine bird to both countries was attempted. In Ireland the trial, of Avhich some particulars are given by Thompson [B. Ireland, ii. p. 32), was made at Glengarifi", but it seems to have utterly failed, whereas in Scotland, where it was begun in earnest at Tay- mouth in 1838, it finally succeeded, and the species is now not only firmly established, but has vastly increased in numbers and range. Lloyd, the well-known author of several excellent works on the A^dld sports and natural history of Scandinavia, supplied the stock from Sweden, but it must be always borne in mind that the original British race was wholly extinct, and no recent remains of it are known to exist in any museum. This species is widely, though intermittently, distributed on the continent of Europe, from Lapland to the northern parts of Spain, Italy, and Greece, but is always restricted to pine-forests, which ^ Yet Stephens in his continuation of Shaw's General Zoology (ix. p. 268), writing in 1819, says that Montagu was present "when one was killed near the upper end of Loch Lomond about thirty-five years since." This would mean that the species survived until about 1784, but the incident is not mentioned by Montagu in his own work, and the assertion may be doubted. 74 CAPE-SHEEP— CARACARA alone afford it food in winter. Its bones have been found in tlie kitchen-middens of Denmark, proving that country to have once been clothed with woods of that kind. More lately its remains have been recognized from the caves of Aquitaine. Its eastern or southern limits in Asia cannot be precisely given, but it certainly inhabits the forests of a great part of Siberia. On the Stannovoi Mountains, however, it is replaced by a distinct though nearly allied species, the T. m'ogalloides, of Dr. von MiddendorfF^ which is smaller with a slenderer bill but longer tail. The Cock-of-the-wood is remarkable for his large size and glossy-black plumage. He is polygamous, and in spring mounts tO' the topmost bough of a tall tree, whence he challenges all comers by extraordinary sounds and gestures ; while the hens, which are much smaller and mottled in colour, timidly abide below the result of the frequent duels, patiently submitting themselves to the victor. While this is going on it is the practice in many countries, though generally in defiance of the law, for the so-called sportsman stealthily to draw nigh, and with well-aimed rifle to murder the principal performer in the scene. The hen makes an artless nest on the ground, and lays therein from seven to nine or even more eggs. The young are able to fly soon after they are hatched, and towards the end of summer and beginning of autumn, from feeding on the fruit and leaves of the bilberries and other similar plants, which form the undercovert of the forests, get into excellent condition and become good eating. With the first heavy falls of snow they betake themselves to the trees, and then, feeding on the pine-leaves, their flesh speedily accj^uires so strong a flavour of turpentine as to be distasteful to most palates. The usual method of piursuing this species on the Continent is by encouraging a trained clog to range the forest and spring the birds, which then perch on the trees ; while he is baying at the foot their attention is so much attracted by him that they permit the near approach of his master, Avho thus obtains a more or less easy shot. A considerable number, however, are also snared. Hybricls are very frequently produced between the Capercally and the Black Grouse, T. tetrix, and the oftspring has been described by some authors under the name of T. medius, as though a distinct species. CAPE -SHEEP, a name absiu-dly given by sailors to the Albatros (Layard, B. S. Aft: p. 363). CARACARA, a South- American bird, so called by the natives of Brazil, first described and figured b}'' JNIarcgrave (Hisf. Nut. Brazil, p. 211). In 1782 it became the Falco thanis of Molina (Sagg. Stor. Nut. Chili, p. 264), and is the Polyhorus tJiarus of ^ Not to be confounded with tlie bird so named previously by Nilsson, which is an liybrid. CARACARA 75 modern ornithology, — the representative of a small group of birds, ■which from their Falconine structure and Vulturine habit, to say nothing of certain peculiarities, might be not unfitly regarded as forming a distinct Family. Three genera, Ibyder which is arboreal, MUrago Avhich is not^ and Polyhorus proper are usually admitted ; but ]\Ir. Sharpe (Cat. B. Br. Mus. i. p. 34) unites the first two, though as the figures here given shew, their bills are very differ- ently formed, Avhile he places as of equal rank in the same sub- MlLVAGO. (After Swainson.) Ibycter. family Cariama (Seriema) and Serpentarms (Secretary-bird). Mr. Ridgway in a careful monograph of the group {^Bull. Geol. Geogr. Surv. Territ.- No. 6, pp. 451-473, pis. 22-26) regards a fourth genus, Phalcohsenus, as necessary, and Gurney {List. Diurn. B. of Prey, pp. 11-14) would have six genera. These birds, Avith some others, are the " Carrion -liaAvks " so frequently mentioned in DarAAdn's Voyage ; but the fullest description of the habits of those frequenting the southern part of South America is by Mr. W. H. Hudson {Argent. Ornithology, ii. pp, 74-88) under the names of " Chimango " and " Carancho " — the former belonging to Milvago and the latter being the species Avhich more to the northward is called "Caracara," namely Polyhorus tharns. Still further north- AA'ard, extending throughout Guiana and thence to Ecuador, as Avell as to Central America, California, and the Gulf States of jSTorth America, besides Cuba, a form is found now recognized by many as a distinct species under the name of P. cherituay or P. o.uduhoni — the last being applied especially to examples from the northern side of the Gulf of Mexico ; Avhile the Guadelupe Islands on the coast of Lower California possess what is deemed by Mr. EidgAvay {nt supra) to be a third species, P, lutosus. All the members of this group are said to walk or run on the ground — a peculiarity not possessed in perfection by any of the other Falconine birds Avith AA^hich they are generally associated. It is worthy of remark that, according to Mr. Hudson (ut supra), since the introduction of large herds of cattle to the plains of South America the abundance of food supplied by their carcases has produced a great increase in the numbers of these birds. 76 CARDINAL— CAROTIDS CARDINAL, the name given in different parts of the world to various hirds from their scarlet plumage, but perhaps originally to the North-American Loxia cardinalis of Linnaeus, the Cardinalis virginianus of modern authors, a beautiful and favourite cage-bird, which, according to Parker, is one of the Emberizidai (Bunting). It is also known as the " Virginian Nightingale " and " Red Bird." In the United States it does not usually occur to the northward of lat. 40°; but it is common in and one of the most characteristic birds of Bermuda. Other birds on which the name "Cardinal" has been bestowed belong to the Finches, Tanagers, and Weaver- birds. CARIAMA, see Seriema. CARINAT^, that division of the Class Aves possessing a " keel " {carina) to the sternum, and accordingly so named by Merrem in 1812 (Abhandl. Akad. JFissensch. Berlin, 1812-13, Physik. Kl. p. 238) ; but generally overlooked by systematists until prominently brought forward by Prof. Huxley {Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 418) as one of the three " Orders " recognized by him, and in the present work regarded as forming a Subclass (see Introduction). It may here be observed, however, that among the Carinatse are to be included a few forms such as Cnemiornis (Cereopsis), Didiis (Dodo), and Strigops (Kakapo), in which the keel of the sternum is nearly or wholly wanting, presumably through disuse of their volant powers. CAROTIDS (from Kapwri^) are the principal arteries which, arising from the brachiocephalic arteries, ascend the neck and supply the head. They exhibit several modifications which have been investigated chiefly by Nitzsch and by Garrod ; but their taxo- nomic value is limited. They shew the following seven arrange- ments : — 1. The right and the left carotids converge towards the middle line and run side by side (or the left covering the right) in a farrow along the ventral surface of the cervical vertebrte. This is their normal and original condition, and is found in the majority of Birds. 2. The two carotids fuse into one, for the greater length of the neck ; this " carotis conjuncta " is generally imbedded in a special median osseous canal formed by the vertebrae ; the right and left root or basal portions are both functional, although one of them is sometimes weaker, as in Herodii, Phwiiicopterus, and some Old- World Parrots. 3. There is one carotis conjuncta, but the right root, i.e. the basal portion of the original right carotis, has been obliterated. The artery is a so-called "carotis primaria sinistra." Such "Aves hvvo- carotidinx " (Garrod) are very frequent, e.g. Rhea and Apteryx among CARO TIDS— CARP US 77 the Ratitae, Podicipes, several Steganopodes, A lea, Otis, Turnix, Megapodiidse, some Old- World Psittaci, Merops, Buceros, Upupa, Trogonid?e, Cypselidte, Colius, all the Pici and Passeres. •4. One carotis conjuncta, but the right root alone is present, the left being obliterated. " This carotis primaria dextra " is likewise deeply lodged, as in the 2nd and 3rd cases, and has hitherto been observed only in Eupodotis. In the following three cases, one or two collateral and super- ficially-placed arteries take the place of one or both deep carotids. 5. A carotis primaria s. profunda dextra coexists with a carotis superficialis s. collateralis sinistra. All the American and a few Old- World Parrots are such " Aves hicarotidinse abnormales " (Garrod). 6. Two supex^ficial carotids, a right and left, are present, the deep or primary vessels being entirely obliterated. Hitherto only c.p.d.^ r.c.p.s. c.p. c. c.p.s. A. B. C. D. DlAGRAMJIATIC REPRESENTATION OF SOME OF THE VARIATIONS OF THE CAROTID ARTERIES. Ao. Aorta ; suA. A. subclavia dextra ; su.s. A. subclavia sinistra ; c.p.cl. A. carotis profunda dextra ; c.p.s. A. carotis profunda sinistra ; c.p.c. A. carotis profunda conjuncta ; c.s.s. A. carotis superficialis sinistra. A. normal condition, two separate deep carotids ; B. the two deep carotids fused into one, e.g. Ardea ; C. the same as B, but the root of the left carotid is reduced, e.g. Phoenicopterus ; B. the left deep carotid is lost, but supplanted by a superficial vessel, e.g. certain Psittaci. observed by Ottley {P.Z.S. 1879, p. 461), as an individual varia- tion of Bucorvus abyssinicus. 7. The only carotis is a c. superficialis sinistra, all the other vessels being lost, observed by Forbes in Orthonyx spinicauda (not in 0. ochrocephala), this being the only exceptional case of all the Passeres hitherto examined. It is clear that the 2nd case is directly referable to the 1st, that the 3rd and 4th are each independently developed from the 2nd, and that the 5th, 6th, and 7th cases are recent and very qualified modifications. The undoubtedly independent acquisition of these carotid characters renders them valueless for taxonomic purposes, except within smaller and well-defined groups, e.g. the Parrots (see also Vascular System). CARPUS (adj. carpal), /capTro? ; the wrist or articulating region between the forearm, or ulna and radius, and the hand. In adult 78 CARR-CROW— CASSOWARY birds there are only two sepai-ate carpal bones, one radial, on the convex or anterior bend of the wrist, and one ulnar, on the posterior or inner angle. Originally the carpus is composed, as in Reptiles and Mammals, of a greater number of bones, which are also present in the embryos of Birds, but most of them fuse either with each other or Avith the adjoining metacarpal bones (see Skeleton). CARR-CROW or CARR- SWALLOW, the name used in Lincolnshire and perhaps other parts of England for the Black Tern in the days when it inhabited this country. The former was -written by Willughby — on the authority of his correspondent Johnson — " Scare-crow." CARR-GOOSE, an old name for the Great Crested Grebe (Podicipes cristatus). CASHEW or CUSHEW-BIRD, so called, according to Edwards (Gleanings, ii. p. 181, pi. 295), from the likeness of the blue knob on its forehead to the cushew or cashew- nut, Avhich is an appendage to the fruit of Anacardium occidentale, Linn. The bird is the Fauxis galeata of modern ornithology, one of the CuRASSOWS. CASSOWARY, a corrupted form of the Malayan Snwari (Crawfurd, Gramm. and Bid. Malay Language, ii. pp. 178 and 25), apparently first printed as Casoarishy Bontius in 1658 (Hist. nat. et med. Ind. Orient: p. 71). The Cassowaries (Casuariidai) and Emeus [Drommdai) — as the latter name is noAv used — have much structin-al resemblance, and form the Order Megistanes,'^ which is peculiar to the Aiistralian Region. Prof. Huxley has shewn {Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 422, 423) that they agree in diflPering from the other Ratit^ in many important characters, into the details of which it is now impossible to enter ; but one of the most obvious of them is that each contour- feather appears to be double, its hyporhachis, or AFTERSHAFT, being as long as the main shaft — a feature noticed in the case of either form so soon as examples were brought to Europe. The external distinctions of the two families are, however, equally plain. The Cassowaries, when adult, bear a horny helmet on their head, they have some part of the neck bare, generally more or less ornamented Avith caruncles, and the claw of the inner toe is remarkably elongated. The Emeus have no helmet, their head is feathered, their neck has no caruncles, and their inner toes bear a claw of no singular character. ^ Ann. and Macj. Nat. Ilist. ser. 4, xx. \t. .000. Cashew-bird. (After Swainson.) CASSOIVAJ^Y 79 The type of the Casuariidm is the species named by Linnaeus Struthio casuariiis and by Latham Casuarius emeu. Vieillot sub- sequently called it C. galeatus, and his ejDithet has been very commonly adopted by "waiters, to the exclusion of the older specific appellation. It seems to be peculiar to the island of Oeram, and was made known to naturalists, as we learn from Clusius, in 1597, Ceraji Cassowary.i by the first Dutch expedition to the East Indies, when an example was brought from Banda, whither it had doubtless been conveyed from its native island. It was said to have been called by the inhabitants " Emeu," or " Ema," but this name they must have had from the earlier Portuguese navigators.^ Since that time examples ^ The figure is taken, hj permission, from Messrs. Mosenthal and Harting's Ostriches and Ostrich Farming (London : 1877). " It is known that the Portuguese preceded the Dutch in their voyages to the East, and it is almost certain that the latter were assisted by pilots of the 8o CA T-BIRD—CECOMORPH^ have been continually imported into Europe, so that it has become one of the best -known members of the subclass Ratitse, and a description of it seems hardly necessary. For a long time its glossy, but coarse and hair-like, black plumage, its lofty helmet, the gaudily -coloured caruncles of its neck, and the four or five barbless quills which represent its wing-feathers, made it appear unique among birds. But in 1857 Dr. George Bennett certified the existence of a second and perfectly distinct species of Cassowary, an inhabitant of New Britain, where it was known to the natives as the Mooruk, and in his honour it was named by Gould 0. bennetti. Several examples were soon after received in this country, and these confirmed the view of it already taken. Mne good species, with the possibility of a tenth, are recognized by Prof. Salvadori in his great work, Ornithologia della Papuasia e delle Molucche (iii. pp. 473-503), the heads of all of them having been previously figured by him in an excellent monograph of the genus {Mem. Accad. Sc. Torino, 1882), from various localities in the same Subregion. Conspicuous among them from its large size and lofty helmet is the C. cmstralis, from the northern parts of Queens- land. Its existence indeed had been ascertained, by the late Mr. T. S. Wall, in 1854, but the specimen obtained by that unfortunate explorer was lost, and it was not until 1866 that an example was submitted to competent naturalists (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 241). Not much seems to be known of the habits of any of the Cassowaries in a state of nature ; but Prof. Salvadori (ut supra) has collected, wdth his usual assiduity, almost everything that can be said on the subject. Though the old species occurs rather plentifully over the whole of the interior of Ceram, Mr. Wallace was unable to obtain or even to see an example. They all appear to bear captivity well, and the hens in confinement frequently lay their dark green and rough-shelled eggs, which, according to the custom of the PuUitx, are incubated by the cocks. The nestling plumage is mottled {Proc. Zool. Soc. 1863, pi. xlii.), and when about half-grown they are clothed in dishevelled feathers of a deep tawny colour. CAT-BIRD in North America is the name of a common and fami- liar summer-visitant, Mhnus caroUnensis, one of the MOCKING-BIRDS, which in addition to the mewing and harsh cry for which it is notorious, is also a remarkably good songster ; in Australia the birds of the genus Ailumdus (Bower-BTRd), and especially A. crassi- rostris, or smitlii of some authors, are so called for the same reason. CECOMORPHiE, the third group of Prof. Huxley's Suborder SCHIZOGNATH^ {Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, pp. 457, 458), composed of former nation, whoso names for places and various natural objects would be imparted to their cnqjloyers (see Alhatkos, lioouv, and Dono). CEDAR-BIRD— CERE OP SIS the Families Laridie (Gull), Procellariidai (Petrel), Colymbidse (Diver), and Akidai (Auk). CEDAE-BIED, a name given in North America to a delicately- coloured and rather common bird Avipelis cedrorum, or carolinensis of some authors, for a long while confounded with its larger congener A. garrulus (Waxwing), which it much resembles in appearance and characters — among them the dilatation at the tip of the secondarj^ Aving-quills looking like red sealing-wax ; but it is much smaller and plainer in plumage. CELEOMORPH^, Prof. Huxley's name {Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 467) for the group containing the Picidse (Woodpecker) and Iijngidm (Wryneck), to which he found it difficult to assign a place. Parker subsequently (Trans. R. Microsc. Soc. 1872, p. 219) raised them to a higher rank as Saurognath^. CEPiE or CEPiOMA (from cera, wax), the soft, generally some- Avhat swollen skin which covers the base of the upper bill, especially well defined in Parrots and Diurnal Birds-of-Prey (see Bill). CEREOPSIS, a genus founded by Latham in 1801 (Suppl. Ind. Orn. p. Ixvii.) on a single specimen of a bird received from Aus- tralia apparently in poor condition, and placed by him in the Order GralLxE. a truer view of its position was, however, taken by those who had observed it in its own country, where it became known as the "Cape- Barren Goose" from its occurring at that spot.^ However abnormal in appearance this bird may be with its short bill thickened at the base, its rather long legs and semipalmated feet, and its grey plumage spotted mth black on the wing-coverts ^ekeopsis. (After S^yainson.) and scapulars ; in its internal structiu-e, as described by Yarrell {Proc. Zool. Soc. 1831, pp. 25, 26), it does not differ in the least important character from other Geese, and in its habits, whether at large or in confinement, is a thorough Goose. It has been introduced into England for more than 60 years, examples having been transferred from Windsor, where it had bred freely in the menagerie of King ^ According to Sonniiii, who calls it " Le Cygne cendre " (N'. Diet, d'hist. nat. vii. p. 68), it was first noticed by Labillardiere in Esperance Bay on the south coast of New Holland, during the search by D'Entrecasteaux for La Perouse in 1792. Collins in 1802 {New South Wales, ii. p. 94) ascribes its discovery by the English settlers to one of the company of the ' Sydney Cove, ' who took it for a Swan ; and Flinders, who was there in February 1798, accordingly named from it two islands on the north coast of Van Dieman's Land. Bass gave the first intel- ligible description, stating that it "was either a Brent or a Barnacle Goose or between the two. " 82 CHACHALACA— CHAFFINCH George IV, to the Gardens of the Zoological Society at its founda- tion. Indeed, it is not at all improbable that there are more living examples at this time in Eiu"ope than in Australia, where even when Gould was there he found it to have been extirpated in places where a few years before it had been abundant. Additional interest is imparted to this by the discovery in New Zealand of remains originally attributed by Sir E. Owen {Proc. Zool. Soc. 1865, p. 438) to the Dinornithine group (Mo a) under the name of Cnemiornis calcUrans, and subsequently fully described by him (Trans. Zool. Soc. v. pp. 395-404, pis. Ixiii.-lxvii.). The acquisi- tion in 1872 of a further collection of bones of this extinct bird enabled Sir James Hector to recognize in it a large Goose, probably allied to Cereopsis and of similar habits, but in which the power of flight had become obsolete, and as such he described it before the Wellington Philosophical Society, 18th August 1873 {Trans. N. Zeal. Inst. vi. pp. 76-84, pis. x.-xiv.A), communicating his results also to the Zoological Society of London, in whose Proceedings for the same year they will be found (pp. 763-771, pis. Ixv.-lxviii.), as well as to Sir K. Owen, who lost no time in preparing an additional memok on the subject, subsequently published in that Society's Transactions (ix. pp. 253-272, pis. xxxv.-xxxix.), and acquiescing in Sir James's determination of the position and relations of this remarkable form. A good many more of its bones have since been obtained, and no doubt can exist on the subject, though the precise epoch at which it became extinct cannot be regarded as settled. CHACHALACA or Chiacalacca, so called in Texas from its cry (Coues, Key N. Am. B. p. 573), Orialis maccalli (see Guan). CHAFFINCH, a well-known bird, the Fr'mgilla coelebs ^ of orni- thology, which may be regarded as the type-form of the Fringillidse (Finch). This handsome and sprightly species, which is so common throughout the whole of Europe, requires no description. Conspicuous by his variegated plumage, his peculiar call-note -, and his glad song, the cock is almost everywhere a favourite. In Algeria our Chaffinch is replaced by a closely-allied species, F. spodogenia, while in the Atlantic Islands it is represented by tAVO others, F, tintillon and F. teijdea all of which, while possessing ^ This fanciful trivial name was given by Linnaeus on the supposition (which later observations do not entirely confirm) that in Sweden the hens of the species migrated southward in autumn, leaving the cocks to lead a celibate life till spring. It is certain, however, that in some localities the sexes live apart during the winter. - This call-note, which to many ears sounds like "pink" or " spiuk," not only gives the bird a name in many parts of Britain, but is also obviously the origin of the German Finlc and our Finch. The similar Celtic form Pine is said to have given rise to the Low Latin Pincio, and thence come the Italian Piacione, the Spanish Pinzon, and the French Pinson. CHAMPA— CHANNEL-BILL 83 the general appearance of the European bird, are clothed in soberer tints. Another species of true Fringilla is the Bramble-finch. CHAM-^A,^ a genus instituted by Gambel {Proc. Ac. K S. Fh'dad. 1847, p. 154) for a cui'ious little bird from the coast-district of California which he had previously described (op. cit. 1845, p. 265) as Farus fasciatus but found to require separation. In the difficulty of assigning a position to this and a more recently dis- covered congeneric form, C. henshawi, from the interior of the same country, systematists have resorted to considering the genus as the type and sole member of a distinct Family Chamseidce, which, if its validity be allowed, proves to be the only Family of Land-birds that is peculiar to the Nearctic area. Thus it becomes a factor of some importance in determining the question whether that area should rank as a Zoogeographical or at least as an Ornithogeographical Eegion. It is impossible here to give details of a matter which has agitated the best ornithologists of North America, and reference can only be made to Dr. Shufeldt's paper " On the position of Chamxa in the System," published in 1889 at Boston in Massa- chusetts (Journ. Morphol. iii. pp. 475-502), wherein the evidence is very carefully weighed, and the conclusion reached is to the effect that it is more nearly related to the Colombian Cinnicerthia than to any other, but the author abstains from declaring the value of Chamseidse as a Family, though of the two, to one or other of which it has generally been referred — namely the Faridse (Titmouse) and Troglodytidse (Wren) — he sees most resemblance to the former. So far as one can judge from the habits of the birds as described by observers, they are more those of a Wren than of a Titmouse ; while the blue eggs which it is said to lay removes it really from the category of either. In the absence then of any very strong reason for disputing what has been asserted by no mean authori- ties, it would seem better for the present to let the Family Chamxidse stand. CHANNEL-BILL, Latham's name in 1802, and since generally used, for a bird described and figured by Phillips in 1789 (Foy. Botany Bay, p. 165, pi.) as the "Psittaceous Hornbill," and by John White in 1790 (Journ. Foy. N. S. TFales, p. 142, pi.) as the "Anomalous Hornbill," which was apparently first obtained 16th April 2 1788, and therefore not long after the foundation of the colony. Latham seeing the need of a new genus for it, made one, ^ This word not having been accepted as English has strictly no right to head an article, but the only names applied to the birds to which it refers, " Bush- Tit " and " Ground-Wren," have not enough special meaning to justify their insertion, while the form, as will be seen in the text, is important enough to require particular notice. ^ But according to other accounts this species leaves New South Wales in January, only returning in October to breed. 84 CHAPARRAL-COCK Scytlirops, and as S. novm-hollanclise it has been almost always recog- nized ever since, though its systematic position has often been disputed — its large and curiously grooved bill inducing some to refer it to the Bucerotidse (Hornbill), while its zygodactyl feet caused others to place it among the Ehampliastklse (Toucan). It is now generally allowed to belong to the Cuculidse (CuCKOw). CHAPAREAL-COCK, so called from the chaparral or dwarf forest Avhich it frequents, the name commonly given by English- speaking settlers in the south-western dis- tricts of North America to a curious form of CucKOW, Geococcyx, of which there are two species. The first, described by Hernandez {Hist. Anim. Nov. Hispan. p. 25, cap. lii.) under the name of Hoitlal- lotl, and then identified by Buffon A^dth the Paraha of Barrere {France Equinox. p. 140), was mistaken by Latham for the Parr aqua figured by Bajon in 1777 {Mem. pour Vhist de Cayenne, i. p. 374, pi. i.), and became the Phasiamis mexieanus of Gmelin. This, being the southern form, is presumably that which is usually called G. affinis. The second, a larger bird, inhabits New Mexico and the adjacent part of the United States of America, and, under the name of Sauro- thera californiana, was described by Lesson {Compl. Buffon, vi. p. 420) as one of the most interesting discoveries of modern times. The habits of both seem to be very similar and A^ery remarkalile. They have short "wings, and seldom fly unless suddenly surprised, but run with great speed, bearing their long tail erect. Like others of their Family in the New "World they build their OAvn nests, though clumsily, and lay therein from two to four Avhite eggs. "When tamed, as these Chaparral-cock. (After Svainson.) birds often are, they becomc expert mousers, but arc so mischievous, says ]\[r. Dresser {Ilns, 1865, p. 467), as hardly to be suffered in a house. The name Paisano (countrjnnan) by Avhich this species is known in some districts is said to be a corruption of Faisan (Pheasant). " Koad-r miner " is another name fre((uently given to it. The osteology of the sjiecies has been miiuitely described by 1 CHARADRIOMORPHyE~CHA TTERER 85 IcTERiA. (After Swainson.) Dr. Shufeldt [Joiirn. Anat. and Physiol, xx. pp. 246-266, pis. vii.-ix., and xxi. pp. 101, 102). CHAKADRIOMORPH^, the first group of Prof. Huxley's Suborder Scldzognathse (Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 457), nearly cor- responding with the Pressirostres and Longirostres of Cuvier, and the Limicola} or Scolopaces of Nitzsch — or in other words including almost all the Scolopacidse (Snipe) and Charadriidse (Plover) of other systematists. CHAT, in England generally used Avith a i3refix as Stonechat, AVhixchat, but in the valley of the Thames said of itself to signify the Sedge- Warbler. In North America it is applied to the tAvo forms of the genus Ideria (I. virens and /. longicauda), which is generally referred to the Family Mniotdtidx, or American War- blers, but may possibly not belong to them, its stout bill being very unlike that possessed by the rest. CHATTERER, a word that has been used by ornithologists in a very wide sense, and Avholly irrespective of its meaning. Gesner's name for the AVaxwing, Garndus Boliemicus (i.e. Bohemian Jay), having been erroneously rendered by Ray, in his translation of AVillughby's Ornithology (p. 133), "Bohemian Chatterer"; and that bird being also the Ampelis of Aldrovandus, subsequent Avriters, Pennant and Latham, used " Chatterer " as the equivalent of Avipelis, when Linnaeus had founded a genus with that name, quite regardless of its inapplicability. This genus being very composite in its character was naturally broken up, and the name Am])elis having been re- tained by the more accurate writers in its original sense for the AVaxwing and its congeners, the name Chatterer has been generally conferred, for want of a better, on a group of birds, one of the most beautiful of which Brisson had termed Cotinga. This gToup, all the members of which inhabit the Neotropical Region, is a very natural one, and has long been regarded as a separ- ate Family, properly called Cotingidx, though it is closely allied to the Pipridse (Manakin), and together they form the divi- COTIN-GA. (After Swainson.) TiJUCA. CHEEPER— CHENOMORPH^ sion Heteromeri of the Mesomyodi of Garrod and Forbes (see Introduction). Mr. Sclater, who adds thereto Piupicola (Cock-of- the-Rock) and an allied genus, which Garrod had put among his HoMCEOMERi, divides the Cotingidm into five subfamilies (Cat B. Br. Ampeliost. (After Swainson.) PrRODERUS. Mus. xiv. pp. 326-405), Tityrma3 with 3 genera, Llpauginx Avith 4, Attilinx diwd. Pbupicolinse each with 2, Cotinginai Avith 11, and Gymno- derinie Avith 7 {see Bell-bird, partim, and Uinlbrella-bird). A considerable number of these birds are remarkable for the extra- ordinarily abnornal form of some of their Aving - quills, and occasionally of their Aving-coverts — a feature in the former case observable also among the Pipridse, and, where existing, generally confined to the male sex. Many of them also are brilliantly coloured, and at least one, Xipholcna pompadora — knoAAOi as the Pompadour ^ Chatterer, is of a hue scarcely to be seen in any other bird. CHEEPER, the young of any kind of bird that cheeps or utters a loAv plaintiA^e note, especially used of game-birds. Grouse, Partridges, or Pheasants ; but also a name of the Tit Lark, though mostly AAdth a prefix, as Moss-Cheeper or the like. CHEER or CHIR, the Anglo-Indian name of Phasianus tvaUichi, a fine but plainly-coloured Pheasant, a native of the "Western Himalayas. CHENOMORPH^, the first group of Prof. Huxley's Suborder Desmognath^ {Proc. Zool. Soc. 1867, p. 460), composed of the Anatidm of most authors — the DuCKS and their allies, among Avhich he includes Palamedea (Screamer). 1 So named by Edwards {Gleanings, ii. p. 1275, pi. 341) after the celebrated Madame de roiiipadour, to whom it and other birds were being sent, when the ship that bore them from Cayenne fell a prize to a British cruiser. I CHEPSTER— CHOUGH ^^ CHEPSTER, possibly a corruption of Shepster, a Starling. CHEEEY-BIED, a name of the Cedar-Bird. CHERRY-PICKER, the Tasmanian name, according to Gould {Hanclb. B. Austral, i. p. 565), of a species of Melithreptus (Honey- SUCKER. CHERRY-SUCKER, a name absurdly given in some parts of England to the Spotted Flycatcher. CHICKADEE, a North American name for various species of Titmouse — no doubt from their call-note. CHICKEN", abbreviated CHICK, the young of any biixl, but generally signifying that of the domestic Fowl. CHIFFCHAFF, occasionally CHIPCHOP, Phylloscopus coUyUta, or nifiis of some authors, the smallest of the three native species of the genus, which are often called collectively Willow- Wrens. The name is doubtless an attempt to syllable the bird's ordinary cry (see Song), and seems to be first found in Gilbert White's Observations (p. 77) published in 1795 after his death by Aiken. CHOANj^ (xodvT], a tube or funnel) are the internal openings of the nasal cavities into the mouth, situated on the palate or roof of the mouth, generally between the maxillo-palatine and pterygoid bones. CHOK, a name used in the Cape Colony for one of the Eagles, Aquila raj}az (Layard, B. S. Afr. p. 10). CHOUGH, a bird much better known, generally with the prefix " Cornish," by name than by observation, the Pyrrhocorax or Fregilus graculus of ornithology, one of the Corvidse (Crow), and formerly a denizen of the precipitous cliffs of the south coast of England, of Wales, of the west and north coast of Ireland, of the south of Scotland, and some of the Hebrides, but now greatly reduced in numbers, and only found in such places as are most free from the intrusion of man or of the Daw, Corvus monedula, which last seems to be gradually dispossessing it of its sea-girt strongholds, and its present scarcity is probably in the main due to its persecution by its kindred. In Britain, indeed, it would appear to be only one of the survivors of a more ancient fauna, for in other countries where it is found it has been driven inland, and inhabits the higher mountains of Europe and North Africa. In the Himalayas a larger form occurs, which has been specifically distinguished, F. hima- layanus, but whether justifiably so may be doubted. The general colour is a glossy black with steel-blue reflections, and it has the bill and legs bright red.^ Another species, P. alpinus, is altogether ^ Shakespear's expression, " russet-pated chouglis " {Mids.-NigMs Dream, act iii. sc. ii,) lias mueli exercised his commentators. Some see in it that "pated" CHUCK- WILLS- WIDO W—CITRIL a mountaineer, and does not affect a sea-shore life. A single example has occurred in England, and is figured in Mr. Aplin's Birds of Oxfordshire, but the possibility of its having escaped from captivity is not to be overlooked, though the species has reached a spot so distant from its home as Heligoland. The Alpine Chough is somewhat smaller than its congener, and is easily distinguished by its shorter and bright yellow bill. Remains of both have been found in French caverns, the deposits in which were formed during the "Reindeer Age." Commonly placed by systematists next to Pyrrliocorax is the Australian genus Corcorax, represented by a single species, C. melanorhamphus, but osteologists must be further consulted before this assignment of the bird, Avhich is chiefly a frequenter of woodlands, can be admitted without hesitation. CHUCK-WILL'S-WIDOW, so syllabled in North America from the bird's cry. One of the Caprimidgidse (Goatsucker), Antrostomus carolinus, much larger than but congeneric with the Whip-POOR- wiLL, A. vociferus. CHURN-OWL, one of the many names of the common Night- jar of Eiu"ope. CIRCULATION, or circulatory system, signifies motion of the blood, which is pumped by the heart through the blood-vessels. Birds, like Mammals, possess a comjDlete double circulation, namely (1) that of the body, from the left ventricle of the heart into the aortic arch, thence through the arteries of the body, returning by the veins into the right auricle, and (2) the pulmonary circulation, from the right ventricle into and through the lungs, returning by the pulmonary veins into the left auricle, and thence into the left ventricle (see Vascular System). CITRIL, the name under Avhich Ray and Willughby in 1663 became acquainted at Vienna with a Finch, and now occasionally used for it in German, though it is more commonly known as Citronenfink, the allusion in each case being to the colour of its plumage, which some consider to be of a citron hue, but is mostly of a yellowish-green. The bird is the Venturon of the French, the Chrysoviitris citrinella of modern ornithology — a common species in southern and parts of central Europe, but seldom occurring much further northward than the Black Forest. It usually frequents mountainous districts, keeping to the neighbourhood of fir-trees, though chiefly feeding on the seeds of grasses and other lowly- growing plants. meant "patted" or footed (c/. tlie heraldic croix patie), and that therefore it refers to this bird with its red feet. Others maintain that "russet" did not necessarily mean red, but was frequently used for grey, and accordingly that the Daw with its grey head was intended. CLARIS— CLA WS 89 CLARIS, a Scottish name for the Bernacle. CLAMATORES, the third Order of Birds according to the arrangement of Andreas Wagner {Arch, fur Nahirgesch. 1841, ii. p. 93), in which he inckided all the PiCARi^ of Nitzsch which were not Zygodactyl or Amphibolic. Subsequently Prof. Cabanis (op. cit. 1847, i. pp. 209-256, and ii. pp. 336-345) gave in greater detail the FamiHes, subfamilies, and genera which he believed the " Order " should comprise, and his are the views which have been adopted by most of the systematic writers who have recognized it. CLAVICLES (Lat. davicula, the collar-bone). Each clavicle articulates by its dorsal end with a process on the median side of the dorsal end of the coracoid, or with the scapula, or with both ; the ventral ends of the two clavicles generally fuse with each other, forming the FuRCULA, and approach the anterior end of the crest of the sternum. Between them the OESOPHAGUS and the Trachea pass from the neck into the thoracic cavity (see Skeleton). CLAWS or NAILS are the horny sheaths of the terminal phalanges of the toes and fingers, generally curved, and often sharply pointed. They are produced by a thickening of the Mal- pighian layer, which forms the " nailbed " out of which the corneous cells grow. The toes of most birds are protected by claws or flat nails, only in the Ostrich the outer toe has no nail, or hardly any, but the often reduced hallux is frequently unprotected. The inner side of the nail of the third toe is often serrated like a fine comb, as in Cormorants, Herons (including Scopus), Ibis, Dromas, Cursorius, Glareola, also in many Nightjars ; in Podicipes the distal margin of the third nail is serrated. Nilsson, Meves, Stejneger, Collett, and Malmgren (c/. Dresser, B. Eur. vii. p. 189, pi. 485) have described the periodical shedding of the claAvs in Lagopus, which grow to a considerable length during Avinter, the seasonal extension dropping off in spring as do the horny fringes on the toes in the Black Grouse, Capercally, and allied birds. Claws on the tips of the fingers are much rarer. Archseopteryx had a well-developed hooklike claw on each of its three fingers. In recent birds such claws are restricted, when occurring at all, to the pollex and index, being sometimes surprisingly well developed, although hardly functional. They occur more or less regularly on the first two fingers in Struthio and Ehea (occasionally as embry- onic traces even on the third finger), also in Anseres and Birds-of- Prey (e.g. Milvus and Cathartes). A pollex claw alone has been found in various Anseres, in Gallus, Birds-of-Prey (especially well developed in the Kestrel), and individually in the Whitethroat and in the Blackbird.^ An index claw alone occurs in Casuarius, ■^ Such an example of the Whitethroat is in Mr. Seebohm's collection, and 90 CLA WS—CL OA CA 1 Dromaeus, and Apteryx. Probably many more birds will be found in wbicli such fingernails have remained dormant as latent germs and have individually been revived ; but the taxonomic value of these ancestral vestigial structures is nil. Spurs are claws and nails in a different sense. They are generally conical, consisting of a horny sheath which surrounds a bony core produced by the supporting bone. Hereto belong those on the metatarsus of many Phasianidse. Similar structures occur on the bones of the wrist and hand, namely a long and sharp spur with strong bony core on the radial side of the first and one on the second metacarpal bone in Chauna derbiana ; on the first metacarpal in Parra and in Hydrophasianus ; and on the radial carpal bone in Plectropterus. The large exostoses of the size of a Avalnut on the ^vrist of the male Pezophaps were probably likewise covered -with a thickened horny layer, and were, like all these structures, used as weapons. Young spurs can be easily grafted on various parts of other animals. CLOACA, the dilated terminal portion of the alimentary canal, which opens through the vent, and besides the faeces, discharges the urine and the genital products. The whole cloaca of most birds is divided by transverse folds into a vestibulum, a urino- genital or middle, and a rectal or innermost chamber. The urino-genital chamber or " urodseum " is small, and receives in its dorso-lateral walls the ureters and the genital ducts, which are protected by papillse. Above their orifices is a circular fold, most prominent on the ventral side ; below them, towards the vent, is another well-marked circular fold, which, towards the ventral aspect, passes into the coating of the copulatory organ, when such is present. The space between this fold and the outer anal opening, which is closed by a strong sphincter muscle, lodges the copulatory organ, and on its dorsal wall leads through a wide opening into the lursa, Fahricii. This organ is peculiar to birds, is most developed in the young of both sexes, and often becomes more or less obliterated in the adult ; its function is still unknoAvn ; it certainly is not a lymphatic gland, and the occurrence of spernia in it is accidental. The innermost chamber, or " coprodteum," is situated above the urodseum, is mostly an oval dilatation of the rectum, and is of considerable size in those birds whose faeces are very fluid, as Accipitrcs, Hcrodii, and Steganopodcs. In Casuarius and Elioa it passes gradually into the i-ectum above, but in many Carinata^, as well as in Struthio, the upper end is marked by a strong circular fold, and the inner surface of the walls is smooth and diU'erent from one of tlio l)lacl