Practical Taxidermy Part 37

Other defects there are; for instance, repet.i.tions of gra.s.ses in "fitting-up," which proves how little can be done with dried things, and how much better it would be to replace them by modelled foliage (mentioned in Chapter XIV). [Footnote: One would-be critic wrote to the papers condemning the whole arrangement, because, in one of the cases, one plant was about a foot nearer the water or a yard nearer to another plant than it should be! The same wiseacre, or his friend, wrote quite an article upon some supposed "fir twigs" which, much to his confusion, were nothing of the sort, but a plant quite proper to its place in the case.]

I would now wish to point out why I object so much to carefully-managed groups of so-called "local" birds, their nests and eggs, being introduced in a general collection, especially if the latter be arranged in a pictorial manner.

First, because small groups, such as of necessity the greater number of pairs of local birds would cut up into, would be lost amidst their larger surroundings, and be really as if an artist were to paint a small, highly finished picture in the corner of some large, "broad"

subject; secondly, the great difficulty there is in protecting such choice groups from moth if exposed in, say, a cubic s.p.a.ce of 100 ft.

filled with other specimens, some of them old and doubtful as regards freedom from insects. A general collection, even should great care be taken, requires constant watching to seize upon any specimen showing signs of damage; but why a choice group of young birds in their nest, with parents--birds in change of plumage, surrounded by accessories which perhaps have cost hundreds of hours to execute--should be exposed to all the evils imaginable when isolation is so much more practicable and practical, pa.s.ses comprehension.

No; I am convinced that the only way to manage, in a museum of sufficient size to have a general collection, is to arrange it as I have sketched out, and to make a separate collection close at hand, if need be, for comparison of the animals collected in the district.

Now for labelling. It was proposed originally in Scheme A in this form:

"It will be essential to have labels in the cases. These maybe made simple, however, with references to a descriptive catalogue. The labels should bear the English name, with 'Resident,' Summer Visitant,' or 'Winter Visitant' on all British species. Nothing more.

"The three sections should have labels of distinct colours--say, yellow for local, pink for British, white for foreign. The labels will probably be best glued on to some part of the stand or setting. They should be as small as possible, so as to be legible,

"Local species maybe distinguished as 'Native' and 'Casual, or Accidental.

"The latter might have a dark line above, and below the name on the label--thus, Stork, or be marked 'Casual--Spring,' or 'Casual--Autumn.'"

To this I objected that if the arrangement was to be "pictorial," the "spotty" appearance of labels, especially if of light tints, was destructive to the effect sought to be gained; that yellow is not distinct from white by gaslight; and that pink often fades to yellow; also that to colour-blind people these labels would have no significance whatever.

In addition, I submitted that there are educated people as well as people of the other cla.s.s, and that the system of labels written with common names inside the cases is not only unscientific but ugly in the extreme, for these reasons--that there are many birds whose "English"

names are just as puzzling as their scientific to the uneducated; whereas, for those who care to learn, the scientific name is a factor of knowledge.

Regarding their inexpedience and ugliness, such a word as the "Lesser-spotted-Woodp.e.c.k.e.r" with the marking underneath it of "Resident," would fill up a large label if it were to be read at any height or distance. Taking it as a whole, the proposition was behind the age, and was commonplace also.

To dispense altogether with the necessity for labels, I proposed that a chart might be made for every group--a picture, in fact, of the contents of each case, every bird numbered, and a list prepared, whose corresponding number would give the whole history of each specimen; but, in any case, the adoption of a ma.s.s of printed matter clumsily introduced amidst pictorial effects must be condemned.

That all this was practicable is now proved by the present state of the Leicester Museum, provisionally finished in its general zoological collections so far as the birds and fishes are concerned. [Footnote: That is to say, that many of the ill-mounted and old specimens will ultimately be replaced by better ones of the same species, and that some modelled foliage will take the place of many of the dried gra.s.ses, rushes, etc, which are not quite truthfully arranged.]

The reference to species in the general collection is now managed as I proposed. (See list, on p. 337, of part of the Order Anseres, printed on sage-green cards.) This is, I contend, a great advance on the old system of labelling, which has this defect, that the labels, even if small, are "spotty" and obtrusive near the eye, and if placed 10 ft.

from the floor, as they must be in many instances, it is impossible to read them unless both label and type be very large, which is an absurdity in a pictorially-mounted collection. [Footnote: When I first came to Leicester the birds, mounted on stands and perches 9 ft. from the floor, were labelled by slips of yellow paper pasted on the stands, the type being that known as Pica and Bourgeois!]

Fancy Ramiphomicron microrhynchum, Boiss. (one of the humming-birds), peeping over a label long enough to take his name--say, 3 in. x 1 in.!

Multiply this by fifty, and fancy a typical collection of pictorially-mounted humming-birds labelled in this manner! A well-known naturalist and scientific zoologist, personally unknown to me, to whom I wrote, advised, as usual, the labels to be of different colours as distinguishing marks. I sent him one of my lists and charts, and he wrote: "I return the printed description which seems to me admirably calculated to convey instruction in a becoming and sightly way. It is undoubtedly an advance upon labelling."

Again, a scientific gentleman of local celebrity wrote an article on the museum, and did me the honour to especially note the subst.i.tute for labels. He says: "Affixed to the front of each group case, and on a level with the eye, is a neatly-printed explanatory tablet, suitably framed, comprising a list of the specimens (numbered), cla.s.s, sub-cla.s.s, order, family, etc, with their scientific terms. The literal interpretation of these several terms is then given. Then follow the scientific names, with s.e.x (where determined); and, lastly, the known range of each species--a matter of acknowledged importance. This is supplemented by an artistically-coloured chart, representing each example (also numbered), in the corresponding position which it occupies in any given group case. Thus is conveyed, in a concise and intelligible form, all the information which can fairly be embodied in the limited s.p.a.ce at command.

Another redeeming feature, consequent upon this instructive and unique method, is the dispensing with the formidable array of labels mounted on unsightly coils of wire dotted about, reminding one of the labels displayed in the shop window of a hatter or haberdasher--'The Latest Novelty,' 'New this Season,' etc. They are not only obtrusive to the eye, but have a decided tendency to mar the neat effect and appropriate mounting of the general collection, and materially interfere with the surroundings, outline, and beauty of the objects to which they are appended, and their multiplied form only enhances this confusion. Beside which, these labels are of necessity frequently placed at such a height that, in order to decipher them, the head of the observer needs to be perched on a neck somewhat like the giraffe.

So forcibly impressed am I with the soundness and value of this newly-devised plan, that I am led to predict that its adoption will sooner or later find favour among other kindred inst.i.tutions even of a larger growth."

LIST OF THE SPECIMENS CONTAINED IN THIS GROUP.

(Arranged from the most highly specialized to lowest form.)

For Reference see coloured CHART below.

ORDER--ANSERES. From the Latin Anser--a Goose,

INCLUDING GEESE, SWANS, TREE-DUCKS, DUCKS, MERGANSERS, etc

Total number of Species of this Order known to inhabit the World 185

Of this number there are as visitants to, and residents in Britain, but 44, 19 only of which remain to breed.

Of these 44 for Britain, there are as visitants to, and residents in Leicestershire 13

3 only of which breed in the County.

Family--ANATIDAE.

From the Latin Anas--a Duck.

(Ducks, Geese, etc.)

No.--EGYPTIAN GOOSE

Chenalopex aegyptiaca (1). RANGE--Africa.

Domesticated in many parts of Europe, including Britain and Leicestershire.

Shot at Withcote Hall, near Oakham (probably escaped from confinement), and presented by F. PALMER, Esq.

No.--BLACK-NECKED SWAN.

Cygnus nigricollis (Gm.). RANGE--Antarctic America.

From River Plate, S. America.

Presented (in the skin) by C. J. MUSSON, Esq, 1876.

No.--BLACK SWAN.

Cygnus atratus (Lath.) (Immature) RANGE--Australia

From Sydney, New South Wales.

Presented by W. M. SQUIRES, Esq, 1875.

No--SHELDRAKE. Tadorna cornuta (Gm.). RANGE--N. Africa, Asia, as far east as j.a.pan, Europe including Britain, and has occurred as a rare straggler in Leicestershire.

From Scotland, by purchase, 1881.

No.--WILD DUCK OR MALLARD.

Anas boscas (1.). Range--North Africa, Asia from the far North to China and j.a.pan, N. America to Mexico, Europe generally, including Britain, and commonly occurring in Leicestershire.