GLIMPSES OF
INDIAN BIRDS
BY DOUGLAS DEWAR
LONDON: JOHN LANE THE BODLEY HEAD
NEW YORK: JOHN LANE COMPANY
TORONTO: BELL & COCKBURN MCMXIII
WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD. PRINTERS, PLYMOUTH
I DEDICATE
THIS BOOK TO
THEODORE ROOSEVELT
A HUNTER OF BIG GAME AND A NATURALIST
WHO, HAVING BROUGHT COMMON-SENSE TO BEAR
ON THE PROBLEMS OF NATURAL HISTORY
DECLINES TO BE DICTATED TO BY THOSE WHO
HAVE CONSTITUTED THEMSELVES
ZOOLOGICAL AUTHORITIES
PREFACE
In the brief sketches that follow I find occasionrepeatedly to attack the prevalent theories ofprotective colouration, because it is impossiblefor the naturalist who uses his eyes to acceptthese theories.
Most of these hypotheses were advanced by fieldnaturalists, but they have since been elaborated bycabinet zoologists and have become a creed. Now,Huxley remarked with truth, “Science commits suicidewhen it adopts a creed.” With equal truth he asserted,“‘Authorities,’ ‘disciples,’ and ‘schools’ are thecurse of science and do more to interfere with thework of the scientific spirit than all its enemies.”
In England zoology is at present in the hands of‘schools’ and ‘authorities’ of the kind to whichHuxley objected.
The result is that where, in some of my previousbooks, I have exposed the shallowness of the prevalenttheories, I have been taken to task by certain reviewerswho are disciples of those ‘authorities.’ Thesegentlemen term my criticisms superficial, but theyhave made no attempt to show in what way my[010]criticisms are superficial. There is a good reason forthis. It is that these journalists know well that anyattempts to rebut my statements will lead to a controversyin which they cannot but be worsted becausethe facts are against them.
If what I say is incorrect my reviewers now have anexcellent opportunity to demonstrate this.
Lest these have recourse to the unfailing resort of thedefeated Darwinian or Wallaceian—the argument ofignorance, lest they say that it is only owing to theirinsufficient knowledge of Indian birds that they cannotanswer me, let me assert that what I say of Indian birdsis equally true of British birds.
I assert with confidence that the colouring of nineout of ten birds has some feature which the theoriesattacked by me cannot account for.
“Hypotheses,” wrote Huxley, “are not ends butmeans. . . . The most useful of servants to the man ofscience, they are the worst of masters, and when theestablishment of the hypotheses comes the end, and factis attended to only so far as it suits the ‘Idee,’ sciencehas no longer anything to do with the business.”
The hypotheses which I decline to accept havebecome the masters of many zoologists who are busilyoccupied in distorting facts which do not coincide withtheory.
It is not very long since an English scientific paperpublished an article entitled “What have ornithologists[011]done for Darwinism?” So long as zoologiststest the work of the naturalist by the amount ofevidence he collects for Darwinism or any other“ism,” it is hopeless to expect zoological science toprogress.