The Zoologist/3rd series, vol 1 (1877)/Issue 7/Notices of New Books
NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.
Wholesome it is for specialist workers in Natural History to have their attention every now and then diverted from their particular object of study, not merely to the investigations of their brethren in kindred branches, but directed to the results at which generalizers are arriving. In this way the first are led by successive steps to wider and wider notions, so as gradually to realize the conception that there are other nuts in the world beside the narrow cell in which each, maggot-like, has been existing; and this discovery cannot fail to make the specialist's labour more useful by showing him how he can turn his efforts so as best to aid the systematist.
Mr. Pascoe then, in this little book, has set an excellent example, and it is one that requires a certain amount of courage to set. So divided and subdivided have become the multitudinous branches of Zoology, and to such an extent has the special knowledge of some of them been pushed, that in these days it is quite certain that nobody can draw up a general Classification which shall pretend to enter into any detail without almost all specialists, on taking it up, discovering that each in his own particular line knows more than the author does of that line, and if some two or three such specialists talk over the book together they are apt to come to the conclusion that the poor author has not been very successful in his undertaking. Now this conclusion is not necessarily just, and it certainly would not be just in the present case. Of course we should have no difficulty in pointing out several passages wherein we are aware, either from our own knowledge or from the information of expert friends, that Mr. Pascoe is behind the existing state of science, or has not reproduced in the most accurate manner the results at which the latest workers on some particular groups have arrived; but that would be an ungracious task, and one from which we gladly abstain. We must not compare the general systematizer with the specialist, but with other general systematizers. We need mention no names, but we have made the comparison, and from it, we think, Mr. Pascoe comes out very fairly. There never has been a system, and in our day we never expect to see one, that could stand a test so severe as some would impose. We might say that all would like to impose, because it is clear that to impose such a test with reason can only come to pass when Zoology is far further advanced towards perfection than, in spite of its legions of votaries, there is any chance of happening for a long time.
Mr. Pascoe's book can hardly fail to be useful. Without being able to pronounce it a very extraordinary production, we are bound to say that it has some great merits. To take even the lowest view of it, and to treat it merely as an Index to the Animal Kingdom we do not hesitate to say that the author deserves well of his zoological brethren for having published it. Every one knows how new genera and larger groups are being multiplied day by day, and how it is becoming almost impossible for a man, even of the greatest zeal, to keep himself sufficiently informed of these matters to read intelligently an article in any periodical that treats of Natural History generally. This handy little book will often supply the knowledge wanted, when a work of greater pretension would be troublesome to consult or perhaps not available for reference till the occasion for using it had passed away. Should Mr. Pascoe, as we hope he may, have the opportunity of bringing out a new edition, perhaps he will pardon us for suggesting that he would do well to submit the pages containing each group to the best authority thereupon that he can find. We are sure he would thus have no difficulty in making some important improvements. We think he would be told that Galeopithecus (p. 183) is now well recognized as an Insectivore, and perhaps he may be converted from that dangerous heresy which teaches that the Sirenia (pp. 178, 179) form only a family (Manatidæ) of the Cetacea. Perilous, too, is the position of that man who doubts "the absolute agreement among ornithologists" not to consider the Saururi lower (instead of higher) than the Pici (p. 152), and Dr. Günther's latest views on the arrangement of Fishes are certainly not those which have been followed (p. 130). But we must not criticize in detail. There seems to have been more than ordinary care bestowed on the printing, but some blemishes we cannot help noticing. We should like to know the authority for the spelling Ryngota (p. 78), which appears to be intentional, and we may observe that the name of the wonderful new genus of Leplocard Fishes last year described by Prof Peters[1] was called by him Epigonichthys, and not Epizomethys, as Mr. Pascoe has it (p. 131), following an unlucky misprint in 'Nature' (vol. xv. p. 66).
Our readers, or some of them, we know, are not partial to over much science. But they must recognize the fact that they form part of a very large army, and the other fact that no army is good for much unless composed of what are technically called the three "arms" of the service in due proportion. All three must know their drill, or in other words should be versed in Anatomy; and then of the three "arms," there are first the physiologists and embryologists, who may be compared to the artillery and engineers; next, representing the infantry, are the cabinet-workers, including the nomenclaturists—a small but useful class who may be likened to pioneers, from the necessary and thankless office they discharge; and lastly, the field-naturalists, whose best similitude may be found in the cavalry, not only from their discursiveness, but from the way in which they crown a victory by a rapid charge when the ground is won. We are not of those who think that the need of field-naturalists will ever be lessened through the work of their less rapid brethren, and the more cavalry are acquainted with the tactics of their fellow-soldiers the more brilliant and effective will be their operations.
- ↑ Monatsbericht Acad. Berlin, 12 June, 1876.