|
|
|
 |
|
 The curate's egg
Wayne Longmore & Walter Boles In the 1800s and early 1900s one of the most important periods in the growing science of ornithology oology (the study of eggs) was considered a worthwhile and important aspect of the study of birds. In Australia the situation was very much part of this trend. However in the 1930s there was a worldwide backlash against egg collecting, culminating in Australia with the banning of illegal collecting and enforced by heavy-handed police raids on known collectors. Over-enthusiastic journalism was typified by the Smith's Weekly, dated 21 December 1935. In an article titled "Intrepid Anti-Birdnesting Squad Raids Scientists', the illustrations were captioned "Blood-thirsty bird's-nester caught red-handed in his den" and "Stirring scene when the intrepid Anti-Birdnesting Squad raids gang of ornithologists at their ghastly work". The writers made merry with accounts of collectors gathering to gloat over their nefarious acts. Almost simultaneously in England, a journal dedicated to oology announced that, through unprecedented public pressures, it was to cease publication. Since then and until only very recently oology has been nominally relegated to the archives of scientific knowledge. Casting a modern and hopefully more objective eye on this episode of scientific history, it is possible to make a far more favourable evaluation of the early egg collecting activities. While it is true that many school boy collections consisted of little more than improperly prepared eggs lacking any documentation, the best collectors must rate among the finest and most observant ornithologists to have worked Australia. To these men, egg collecting was more than just the equivalent of the collection stamps, coins or other gentlemanly pursuits of the day. Efforts of the early collectors in acquiring the clutches were more rigorous than merely wandering into the bush and returning with pockets laden with eggs. The oologist had to "know the birds and know them darn well". It required extensive experience and dedication to recognise the behaviour of nesting birds, and hours of observation to identify the progress of nesting and the stage of development of the eggs. Nests themselves are not easily located; many are well camouflaged to avoid detection. Frequently it was only by noting subtle aspects of a bird's behaviour that a hidden nest could be discovered. Contrary to what most people would a first think, a good collector would take the whole clutch early in the season. This ensured that the birds would renest without deleterious effects. If only single eggs were taken, particularly from nests containing just two, it could eventually cause significant decline in the local populations. And raiding nests when incubation was well advanced or when the season had progressed too far risked failure of the entire breeding attempt. The actual procurement of the eggs would often entail climbing or dangling precariously from high trees or cliffs and making the descent from these perilous positions while keeping the eggs from harm. Carrying pouches were usually used, but occasionally it was necessary to transport the eggs in trouser pockets or even the mouth with, fortunately, only the occasional disaster. When properly prepared, each egg had a single hole drilled in the side (end-blown eggs were definitely taboo among all self-respecting oologists) through which the yolk and albumen were carefully removed, before the egg shell was cleaned and dried. Each clutch was given a distinct set mark and cross-referenced to diary entries ensuring complete and authentic data. In the collector's cabinet room the clutch was given an individual card with full data before being finally placed in the proper drawer. If anything justifies the actions of these collectors, it is the meticulous notes they took. These data were often more detailedthan those recorded by birdwatchers and 'legitimate' professional ornithologists. In pursuing their avocation, the oologists accumulated information on a range of aspects of breeding behaviour, much of which is still missing from Australian ornithological texts. The stigma arising from their illegality and the fear of persecution prevented (and still prevents) the collectors from publishing their 'ill-gotten' information. Public reaction must have set our knowledge of bird breeding biology back quite some years. It certainly must be pointed out that there was also a bad side to egg collecting. Some enthusiasts tended to gather onl always the 'rogues'. There were incidents of data manipulated to make clutches more valuable or exchanges of incorrectly identified eggs. (One case of the latter was the passing of the eggs of the common Great Horned Owl, Bubo virginianus, of North America as those of the uncommon and prized Powerful Owl, Ninox strenua, of Australia.) Some local populations were occasionally almost decimated by overzealous raids. Fortunately these instances were infrequent. In New South Wales the confiscated collections were deposited in the Australian Museum, joining several earlier important donations. Together these form the largest and most comprehensive collection of eggs in any Australian museum; with recent acquisitions the holdings are approaching 20,000 clutches representing about 850 species. The majority are from this country but there is a good representation from other parts of the world. More than 20 notable collections form the major components of this accumulation. The Dobroyde Collection was formed by the Ramsay brothers, one of whom, E.P. Ramsay, became Curator of the Australian Museum in 1874. Ramsay was acknowledged as one of the country's foremost ornithologists, producing numerous publications during his career. Between 1882 and 1883 he wrote a series of articles resulting from his oological studies. These were illustrated with hand-coloured print of the eggs. John Gould, however, wrote to Ramsay, convincing him to cease publication. Gould anticipated writing a similar tome on Australian eggs, but this never eventuated, and Australia had to wait before a proper reference finally became available. In 1886 Ramsay employed a Victorian, A.J. North, to reorganise his Dobroyde Collection. North was later employed by the Museum to catalogue specimens received. He published many outstanding bird papers Within three years the Museum produced North's Descriptive Catalogue of the Nests and Eggs of Birds Found Breeding in Australia and Tasmania. No doubt this catalogue included Ramsay's notes previously intended for the work successfully blocked by Gould. It included illustrations of eggs from the Museum collections reproduced by heliotype process. A limited number of copies had hand-coloured plates. In 1900 North had competition from Melbourne with the appearance of a similar book by his rival A.J. Campbell. North countered with his monumental, four-volume Nests and Eggs of Birds Found Breeding in Australia and Tasmania, published by the Museum in 1901-1914. North utilised the large and growing collections within the Museum and his own extensive personal collection. This work included descriptions of the birds and of their nests and eggs, each account accompanied by a line drawing by Neville Cayley, Snr (father of the famous Neville Cayley, author of What Bird is That?)Additionally each species account contained diary extracts from many leading Australian ornithologists, both amateur and professional. North's efforts received wide acclamation. Again a limited number of copies were produced with Cayley's hand-coloured plates. Today these works are collectors' items. Both Ramsay's and North's collections were donated to the Museum. Among the raided oologists were A.E. D'Ombrain and A.F.B. Hull. D'Ombrain was a Macquarie Street ophthalmic surgeon, while Hull had been the honorary ornithologist at the Australian Museum, appointed upon North's death in 1917. Their collections had been destined for the Australian Museum but, because of the premature confiscation, they arrived before anticipated. Foremost of the donated collections were those of W.D.K. Macgillivray and T.P. Austin, both well curated and no table for the extremely detailed data books that accompanied them. Little did these gentlemen realise how their lovingly curated eggs would find a new lease of life nearly half a century later. It is now recognised that the long-neglected and spurned egg collections contain a wealth of valuable information, and today there is a worldwide revival in interest. In North America, the effects pesticides on eggshell thinning in birds of prey and pelicans was confirmed from the study of eggs laid before and after the wide scale introduction of these poison Australian ornithologists began to suspect that our birds of prey were suffering from the same problem. Penny and Jerry Olsen of Canberra examined clutches of eggs in Australian museums and confirmed the cause of eggshell thinning to be the use pesticides such as DDT and DDE. Were it not for these collections, the data could not have been gathered and we could still be theorising on the cause of the decline breeding success. When studies such a this use large numbers of egg clutches, it much more sensible to employ museum collections than to invade the privacy of nesting birds. Another contribution is to the mapping of species' distributions. Each clutch represents a known breeding attempt. By plotting the localities of these earlier specimens and comparing them with the known present breeding distribution, it can produce striking evidence of the shrinking range of some species. Information from the egg collections of the Australian Museum was used in the compilation of the historical sections of the Atlas of Australian Birds, and the collections are frequently consulted as part of environmental surveys. Analysis of the records accompanying the clutches provides information on other topics such as the length of the breeding season, clutch size, nest site requirements and changes in egg numbers and sizes throughout the year. Two particular areas aided by the collections are the study of nest parasitism by cuckoos and communal nesting. Egg collecting did not cease after the 1930s. It continued as an illicit activity until recently. The Sydney Sun reported on 11 February 1983 the seizure of an illegal collection in New South Wales. "The [wildlife inspectors] were staggered to find an incredible collection of more than 2,000 eggs." It must be remembered that all official collection of Australian fauna is administered by the wildlife or conservation departments in each State or territory. Failure to obtain appropriate permits leads to hefty fines and confiscation of illegally taken material. Although illegal collecting cannot be condoned, there remains the need to recognise the potential value in these ill-gotten gains and to ensure that the accumulation of information becomes generally accessible. Recently the Australian Museum received by donation the important Bettington-Hyem Collection. This well-documented collection contains several Australian species missing even from the Museum's sizeable holdings. Such donations to natural history museums ensure that the useable database continues to grow and permits us to address a range of environmental questions. Egg collections, correctly used in conjunction with other data, could hold clues to some of the answers. Olsen, P.D. Fuller, P. & Marples, T.G.1993. Pesticide-related eggshell thinning in Australian raptors. Emu 93: 1-11.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
