# The Zoologist/3rd series, vol 1 (1877)/Issue 1/Editor's Address

Published in: The Zoologist, 3rd series, vol 1, issues 1 (January, 1877), p. 1–4
THE ZOOLOGIST
THIRD SERIES.
* Vol. I.]JANUARY, 1877.[No. 1.
EDITOR'S ADDRESS.
In undertaking the duties of Editor of this long-established journal, the promises already received assure me of a continuance of the kind assistance which was so freely rendered to my predecessor by a large majority of the best zoological observers in the United Kingdom; and for my own part I shall strive to prove myself worthy of that support. It will, however, be readily understood that the success of 'The Zoologist' depends far more on its contributors than on the exertions of its Editor, and accordingly I venture to preface my labours by a few words which I trust may be acceptable to those on whose favour I shall have so largely to rely.
In the first place, it must always be remembered that Zoology is one of the most progressive of the sciences. Consequently many zoological observations which at the time they were made—say twenty years ago—were apt enough and of great value, have since become, by the natural growth of the study, of comparatively slight importance at the present day. Nor is there any appearance of a check in this growth. On the contrary, Zoology was never more rapidly advancing, and its votaries were never more active and numerous than now. The ​results no one can attempt to predict; but it is clearly the duty, as it must be the desire, of all zoologists and well-wishers to Zoology to aid this rapid advance. I would, therefore, with the utmost respect to my supporters, earnestly request them in every case to consider beforehand whether the contributions they may be intending to forward to this journal are such as will promote the progress of the study, and to satisfy themselves that this is so ere they despatch their communications.
It does not follow because a certain incident deserved publication once, that a similar incident is not worthy of record now. It is ob'ious that there are many occurrences which it is not only allowable but even highly desirable to communicate time after time, although beyond the mere occasional differences of place and date there may be little or no novelty in the notice.
Of such a kind are communications regarding the appearance of really uncommon species, or of common species at unusual seasons or in new localities. The use of these lies in their multitude, for it is only by collecting such records extending over a long period that any law may be deduced from them—a law which perhaps may bear upon some more general question: or the fact may be rendered apparent that the species is extending its geographical range. And it seems fitting that 'The Zoologist,' which has always been the great storehouse of notices of this land, should still maintain the same character. Hereby the progress of science may be unquestionably aided.
Then there is another matter, and one which I am well aware requires delicate handling on the part of an Editor. Yet it is so important that I cannot refrain from directing attention to it, and trust I may do so without giving offence to any. There exists amongst all contributors to Natural-History journals an unconscious but more or less strong tendency (sometimes most strongly shown in the best writers) to make the local and personal part of their communications of greater importance than it deserves.
​To put a case which I never heard of happening, although it might well occur:—A man fishing, entomologizing, or botanizing along a stream encounters, one after another, a dozen Kingfishers; yet perhaps for days, weeks, or even months, he may have taken almost precisely the same walk, perhaps for the same purpose, without ever having seen more than a single bird of the species in one day, and that only at rare intervals. He will record the fact, and it is worth recording, but the probability is that in so doing he will rather dwell on its personality or local character—the circumstance that he, and he alone of mortals, was so favoured as to be the witness of such an unusual sight, and that his favourite stream was the scene; and he will be tempted to relate the happy accident which led him on that particular day to start with rod, net, or vasculum on that particular excursion. The cause or causes which induced the appearance of so unusual a number of Kingfishers will be most likely passed over altogether, although herein lies the sole importance of the communication. The observer's personality is of little or no interest to any one but himself: it is the bird or the number of birds observed under such circumstances that alone can have any zoological bearing.
In like manner, by too many naturalists, is the capture of a scarce insect or mollusk in a particular locality regarded rather as an instance of the lucky captor's prowess than as having reference to the appearance of the species. Still more forcible are these considerations when the species may be, after all, one that is not rare, and one that may be safely expected to show itself in the locality at the proper season.
There is some reason to suppose that the prevalence of notices of this kind (and I think no one can assert that past volumes of 'The Zoologist' have been free from them) has been the means of deterring excellent observers from recording in this or other journals discoveries of considerable interest and importance. One such may perhaps be cited as having been brought to my knowledge ​by a friend. About ten years since an Annelid of very remarkable character—Dutrochet's Land-leach (Trochetia subviridis), of which only two examples had previously been observed in England, and those under circumstances which led to the suspicion of its being an introduced species—was found to be abundant in a particular locality. The finder was urged to publish the fact in 'The Zoologist,' as the most appropriate means of making it known to naturalists, but he could not be persuaded to do so, from the notion, ill-grounded as it might be, that notices therein printed generally had their origin in the personal vanity of the writers; and hence the details of this interesting discovery have never yet been fully given to the world. Many of the best field-naturalists shrink from giving their observations publicity, partly that they may not incur the shadow of a charge of personal vanity, and partly through an opinion of self-respect, which hinders them from placing their own discoveries on a level with those of men against whom such a charge could be not unfairly brought.
These remarks I venture to make now; it would be impossible for me to make them later, for they might be wrongly applied by some of my readers to communications that will have appeared in the meantime. At the outset of my editorial career, however, they may be taken not amiss.
In conclusion, I need only say that my best efforts shall be devoted to the advancement of the study which all zoologists have at heart, and, with the assistance of my contributors, I doubt not that that advancement will be real.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1928, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 95 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse