Nov., I9o6 [ EDITORIALS 155 expression of opinion. We invite relevant dis- cussion.--J. G. IS EGG- IU the May-June t?ird-ore, COLLECTING 1906 , pages 95 to 98 , appears an JUSTIFIABLE? article, entitled "The Amount of Science in Oology", which deserves careful attention from every egg- collector and oologist. The writer, Pro- fessor Thomas H. Montgomery of the University of Texas, arraigns oology as a science in a very convincing manner. He han- dles his subject admirably and we heartily agree with him in a good deal of what he says, tho we as heartily dissent from his repeated implication that the bulk of egg-collecting is useless and should be stopped. A reply by Mr. Robert P. Shatpies, as printed in the September-October issue of t?ird-Lore, pages I69-17o, altho it contains some excellent points, still leaves Professor Montgomery with the best of the argument. Several more points have occurred to us, how- ever, which we hereby submit in defense of the collector and student of bird's eggs and uests. Even in his coutention as to the quanlily of science in oology Professor Montgomery is not quite fair. He admits that there is a little, but dwells on the technicality that the term ex- cludes everything but what relates solely to the colors, shapes, sizes and numbers of eggs. This is mi,leading, for we all now-a-days use the term oology as including everything pertaining to the eggs, nests, nesting places, and nesting habits of our birds. Then Professor Montgomery proceeds to be- little tile value of whatever facts we can accumu- late in this field, partly on the grounds that the field is relatively small, and partly because the published resnlts of the study of oology are in the nature of a bare record of numbers, sizes, descriptions of nest structnre, etc.; he says this is not science, but merely a possible pr,eparation. For science begins only when laws are established. What a juggler of words! He seems to have forgotten for the moment that the vast bulk of the work of embryologists, morphologists, and systematists is a "mere cataloging" of the structures of animals and plants. The work of His in embryology is referred to in comparison with the published descriptions and figures of egg-shells and nests; but we must declare that the distinction appears to us only one of sub- ject matter: both are records of structure. hi belittling the importance of the accumula- tion of hoards of facts, Professor Montgomery makes a grave error. The majority of present- day scientists (tho perhaps we use the term wrongly!), many of them of eminence, content themselves with a simple accumulation of facts; they have constant reason to deplore the pre- mature deduction of laws (tho lhal is where science begins, according to our learned infor- mant!). The cataloging of a vast arrayof facts is oftell necessary to the safe establishment of even a single law in nature. As to the different laws determined, who is as yet in a position to judge anything of their relative values? We will admit that the field of oology up- pears to be small as compared to the field of say, embryology. But it seems hardly needful to say that this in no way militates against the value of each fact recorded in the smaller field. The only difference resulting is in the relative sizes of the two masses of facts. Some of us can accomplish more, by nature of our capacity for work, in a small field than we can in a large one: we can gain a more adequate com- prehension of the smaller subject. Should we, whose ability happens to be limited, be de- barred from .any participation in the contribu- tion to science, simply because we cannot enter the largest field? The field of oology, in its broader sense, will be found extensive enough to occupy the average investigator for some time. And in spite of Professor Montgomery's over-emphasis of the barrenness of oology, it without any violence to meaniug involves the accumulation of data on habits, life history and general ecology, as well as on the mere egg-shell. After all, we cannot bring ourselves to be- lieve that the quantity of science in oology is the only deciding point as to whether or not egg.collectingis jnstifiable. We do not main- tain that all collectors pur>ue the subject with the sole purpose of obtaining knowledge. But we do say that the maiority , more or less incidentally perhaps, do obtain a considerable amount of information which becomes sooner or later available 'to Science. Besides tim scientific aspect of collecting, no nlatter what its valuation, there is the educa- tional feature so prominent in the develocment of many individuals. Many an advanced in- vestigator along nlore important and practical lines received his early training ill accuracy and method thru securing and arranging his collection of eggs. We can name at leaqt a dozen eminent men of science who have de- clared to us that they got their first interest in things of Nature thru collecting birds' eggs. We wonder if Professor Montgomery himself did not get his start in this way, too! The boy may fil?d far worse play-time employ- nlent than in hunting tile fields for a new bird, especially when he puts in his spare time at home studying his finds. Which is of most worth, a f?w bird skins and eggs, or A .MAN? The educational value of egg-collecting is to our minds preeminent. Then there is the recreative phase which is not to be disparaged; and the pleasure to be der,red from this pursuit. We must confess that we have gotten more complete satisfaction, in other words happiness, out of one vacation trip into the mountains after rare birds and eggs than out of our two years of University work in embryology} The tired business man who takes a week's vacation in the spring, finds in oology a most restful pursuit. The mind- worn school-teacher, aud we know several such, forgets all bis troubles in a June jaunt into arian haunts. Both take in a few speci- mens, and about these cluster woodsy memo- ties which serve to refresh an evening hour now and then during the long work-a-day setson. There is all esthetic tinge which only one who has "been there" can appreciate.
