aba events
Nikon Monarch 7

    Transforming American Ornithology

    A review by Frederick Davis

    The Feathery Tribe: Robert Ridgway and the Modern Study of Birds, by Daniel Lewis

    Yale University Press, 2012

    346 pages, $45.00—hardcover

    ABA Sales / Buteo Books 13676

    Quick: Who is the most significant figure in the history of American ornithology between Audubon and Mayr?

    Hint: Who else achieved such status as to be instantly recognized by just a single name?

    Time’s up.

    Thankfully, there is no definitive answer to this rhetorical—and deeply flawed—question, but Daniel Lewis makes a remarkably convincing case for the Smithsonian ornithologist Robert Ridgway.

    To call Lewis’s Feathery Tribe: Robert Ridgway and the Modern Study of Birds a biography would miss the point. Though Lewis does reveal a great deal about Ridgway’s life, from his birth in 1850 to his death almost 80 years later, this important study is, as its subtitle suggests, a  prosopography, an investigation of a culture and a community, that “feathery tribe” of American ornithologists including Joel Asaph Allen, Elliott Coues, and William Brewster, who, collectively, refined the study of birds as a key component of the modern life sciences while simultaneously establishing the place of birds in nature study.

    Screen Shot 2013-06-19 at 6.42.09 PMA childhood in rural Illinois provided Ridgway with a talent for shooting and the ability to apply himself to unpleasant tasks. The first of ten children, the young man cheerfully bore the brunt of family chores. At the precocious age of thirteen, he sent a letter about the birds he had seen to the U.S. Patent Office, which in those days maintained a bird collection; that letter eventually found its way to Spencer Fullerton Baird, the assistant secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. Baird replied, urging the nascent naturalist to learn scientific names. Thus began a productive correspondence, one that led Ridgway to his first job and ultimately determined the course of his entire career.

    With Baird’s recommendation, the seventeen-year-old Ridgway joined the Fortieth Parallel Survey as a zoologist. The job was a dream come true, and in the two years he accompanied the expedition, Ridgway confronted with remarkable aplomb lightning strikes, mosquito swarms, fevers, diarrhea, delirium, hostile Indians, thefts, and desertions.

    Ridgway returned to the Smithsonian with nearly 1,500 specimens. Moreover, he had developed valuable skills as a “birdman,” skills he put to good use at the museum. In his first few years, the still young ornithologist wrote an extensive account of the discoveries made by the Fortieth Parallel Survey, and he began the long work of unraveling the relationships among the birds of North America. Ridgway was just one of the numerous young “Bairdians,” but when the great Nestor of American ornithologists died in 1887, it was Ridgway who would deliver the memorial address.


    BINbuttonD
    rawing on his expanding network of amateur and professional collectors, Ridgway strove to expand the Smithsonian’s bird holdings, eventually donating his own collection at a time when others were selling theirs. That generous act is all the more surprising given how the Ridgway family struggled on his meager Smithsonian salary. Preparing illustrations served as a source of additional
    income, though payment for those contributions varied wildly. Ridgway also worked as a colorist, relying on
    his extensive knowledge of avian structure and plumage. Unfortunately, The Feathery Tribe reproduces only one of Ridgway’s many bird portraits.

    Museum duties and professional interactions more than filled Ridgway’s days, and they play a central role in The Feathery Tribe, but Lewis also portrays other, more personal aspects of Ridgway’s life, including his magnanimous accommodation of requests and visits from the
    public, disruptions that less generous men might not have tolerated.

    The founding of the Nuttall Ornithological Club in Cambridge, Massachusetts, coincided with the birth of other professional societies in the late nineteenth century. Lewis’s account of the early days of the club—the first professional organization devoted entirely to ornithology—reveals much about its founders and board, most of whom were, naturally, members of “the feathery tribe.”

    The original leaders, especially Allen and Coues, envisioned the Nuttall Club as a springboard to scientific and professional careers rather than as a haven for “bird lovers” or other amateurs. Ridgway, neither a board member nor a New England resident, labored away in the Smithsonian collections writing for the club’s Bulletin; indeed, the first issue, published in April 1876, featured Ridgway’s frontispiece illustration of the newly discovered Brewster’s Warbler, along with a formal description provided by William Brewster himself.

    From their base in the Nuttall Club, Coues and Allen took the lead in establishing the American Ornithologists’ Union. In 1882, Ridgway
    and Coues served as the AOU’s inaugural vice presidents, with Allen as president.

    Through Ridgway’s papers and correspondence, Lewis offers tantalizing hints about the lives and work of contemporary collectors, who worked on the “front line of discovery” but receive limited attention today in historical accounts. In their reports to Ridgway, collectors described both the wonders of underexplored regions and the challenges of shooting and skinning up to fifty birds a day, efforts that, as Lewis points out, produced the valuable series of specimens that ornithologists needed to study variation between individuals and across regions. Such studies, by Ridgway, Allen, and Coues in particular, drove the development of the modern subspecies concept in ornithology.

    While the ornithologists exulted in the realization of their collective ambitions, they also shared some surprising concerns. To an individual, the feathery tribe seems to have suffered symptoms of what might today be called depression; Lewis offers the intriguing suggestion that those complaints, which increased in late spring and summer, when the largest numbers of specimens were prepared, indicate chronic poisoning by the arsenic used in putting up skins. A telling photo of Ridgway clearly shows the blackened fingernails associated with arsenic poisoning.

    Ridgway published widely over his long career, in both scientific and popular periodicals, and illustrated many other publications, often without credit. In describing new species, he commemorated friends and collectors in scientific names, a favor often returned.

    Ridgway synthesized his artistic skill and his scientific eye in his Color Standards and Color Nomenclature of 1912. Lewis argues that in devising color standards, Ridgway stepped beyond his own professional authority—but his system and some of his names have outlived him and are still used today.

    The Birds of North and Middle America, published as Bulletin of the United States National Museum No50, was Ridgway’s magnum opus. A monumental project to write a technical description for every species and subspecies in the region, including the West Indies and the Galápagos, this work absorbed much of Ridgway’s professional effort from 1894 to his death in 1929. Lewis argues that North and Middle America reveals that Ridgway had lost touch with trends in the biological sciences: the work is far more “Linnaean than Darwinian.” At the same time, the arcane descriptions alienated amateur naturalists, who found them far removed from the living birds they sought. Yet Lewis suggests that the precision of Ridgway’s language, though increasingly obscure to amateurs, made possible the evolution of scientific thought.

    Readers of Birding will appreciate Lewis’s analysis of early efforts to produce definitive checklists to North American birds while at the same time trying to stay current with constant nomenclatural change. Plus ça change…. Ridgway produced several checklists himself, but it
    was the pugnacious Coues who positioned himself at the center of such debates with his own Check Lists and the five editions of his Key to North American Birds.

    The Feathery Tribe captures well how Robert Ridgway and a coterie of ornithologists established ornithology as a scientific study, open to amateurs and professionals alike, while striving to eke out a living and define their own professional identities. By placing Ridgway’s life and work at the Smithsonian at the center of his book, Daniel Lewis reveals how a few dedicated ornithologists refined and transformed the study of birds in America.

    - Frederick R. Davis is Associate Professor of History at Florida State University, where he teaches the history of science and medicine and environmental history. His The Man Who Saved Sea Turtles: Archie Carr and the Origins of Conservation Biology was published in 2007 by Oxford University Press. Davis is an avid and lifelong birder.

    Recommended citation:

    Davis, F. 2013. Transforming American Ornithology [a review of The Feathery Tribe, by Daniel Lewis]. Birding 45(4):65.

     

    The following two tabs change content below.
    Birding Book Reviews

    Birding Book Reviews

    Birding Book Reviews publishes Birding magazine's reviews on line. Book reviews are edited by Rick Wright.
    Birding Book Reviews

    Latest posts by Birding Book Reviews (see all)

    • http://profile.typepad.com/tfloyd Ted Floyd

      Some folks may not realize that the ABA makes an award in the name of Robert Ridgway. From the ABA’s website:

        The ABA Robert Ridgway Award Publications in Field Ornithology

        Given for excellence in publications pertaining to field ornithology. The award is given specifically for publications on the subjects of field identification and bird distribution in North America. It is given to either authors or artists. This award recognizes professional achievements in field ornithology literature.

      Recipients of the ABA’s Ridgway Award have been Harold Mayfield (in 2002), Susan M. Smith (2004), Steve Howell (2005), Donald Kroodsma (2006), Bill Clark (2007), Bill Thompson (2008), and Richard Crossley (2012).

    • http://profile.typepad.com/tfloyd Ted Floyd

      This statement fascinates me:

        Lewis argues that North and Middle America reveals that Ridgway had lost touch with trends in the biological sciences: the work is far more “Linnaean than Darwinian.”

      I confess, I haven’t read the The Feathery Tribe. So maybe I’m jumping to the wrong conclusion. But I would say that a Linnean, as opposed to a Darwinian, point of view was all the rage in the biological sciences in the USA in the early 20th century. (I’ve argued that point extensively elsewhere. So have many others. It’s in any basic text on the history of biological thought.) Within American ornithology, Louis Agassiz Fuertes (a Ridgway contemporary) was notoriously Linnean, and “exemplary” for his anti-Darwinian views. I’m curious, how is Fuertes treated in Feathery Tribe? And then there’s the final nail in the Darwinian coffin with Peterson’s neo-Platonic, neo-Linnaean, neo-Adamic, powerful and diabolical masterpiece of 1934, A Field Guide to the Birds.

      Well, you’ve made me want to read The Feathery Tribe and that’s rather the point, isn’t it?

    • http://birdingnewjersey.com Rick Wright

      I don’t remember Fuertes coming up at all in the book (except once when Louis Agassiz is called, mistakenly, Louis Agassiz Fuertes).

      The real tension between Ridgway’s theoretical convictions and his practical concerns is clear in the first pages of North and Middle America, where he declares himself entirely a Darwinian, denying discreteness and definability to almost any taxonomic category — and then going on for the next however many volumes he finished himself (can’t remember, was it eight, nine?) to lay out a rigid grid of perfectly distinct species and subspecies. Ridgway knew deep down that what he was doing was entirely artificial and arbitrary, but had no way to write a book like that without treating the categories as real (Real). I’m not sure anyone could.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Birding.Aboard Diana Doyle

      I read this book and, although it has an overall slightly academic style, it’s still a “great story.” I enjoyed the weaving of historical background with Ridgway’s life.
      Many years ago I had borrowed a copy of Ridgway’s Color Standards and Color Nomenclature just out of curiosity. Such a simple concept, but with such difficult implementation at that time! The latter chapters of Lewis’s book, about this personal project of Ridgway’s, were fascinating.

    • http://profile.typepad.com/6p017ee7c950d9970d Birding Book Reviews

      Did you know that Color Standards is available on line? http://tinyurl.com/ridgwaycolors

    • Steve Tomashefsky

      Without meaning to minimize Ridgway’s importance to the history of American ornithology, it must be said that he was among the least interesting figures of his generation. He paid lip service to Darwin without that making any real difference to his work. He might be considered a Linnaean because his primary work was as a describer and classifier, not as a theoretician. But it’s not clear he ever really took a principled scientific stand on one side or the other. An interest in subspecies does not necessarily imply concepts of evolution; all it requires is close observation and careful description. He rose to the top of his profession (like Frank M. Chapman) with only a high-school diploma, which is remarkable. But it’s hard to escape the notion that he lacked a certain breadth of imagination. His sometime rival Elliot Coues (who was much better educated) could be a show-off, as his “Daemon of Darwin” (1885) demonstrates. But ideas — including some very wrongheaded ones — mattered to him much more. Lewis doesn’t really make the case that Ridgway was a scientist. He was a very talented and supremely industrious describer.

    • Steve Tomashefsky

      Also, with regard to Ted Floyd’s comment above, I’m not sure what evidence there is that Louis Agassiz Fuertes was an “exemplary” anti-Darwinian. He was, of course, primarily a painter and didn’t write very much at all. On the other hand, Louis Agassiz, the Harvard professor, was indeed fiercely anti-Darwinian, but he was Darwin’s contemporary, not Ridgway’s. So perhaps there’s some confusion here.

    • Daniel Lewis

      I include Louis Agassiz several times in Chapter 6, on Ridgway’s publications — mostly in the context of his brief mentoring of Joel Allen, and his prickly relationship with Spencer Baird — but most of my Agassiz commentary concerns his son Alexander, who covered the expenses of one of Ridgway’s books. I do actually mention the artist Louis Agassiz Fuertes once, as he and Ridgway both went on the 1899 Harriman expedition to Alaska. And I see just now that the index improperly references Louis Agassiz Fuertes when pointing to Louis Agassiz. (Artist LAF had no blood ties to Louis Agassiz; his father named him after the Swiss-born American naturalist.)

      As far as Linnaeus goes, the specific element of Linnaean thought that Darwin helped to overturn was the central Linnaean notion of the immutability of species. And I don’t really argue that Ridgway overturned Linnaen thought, only that Ridgway’s systematics work was a reflection of the saturation of Darwinian thinking among most American scientists by the early 1880s.

      Rick, Ridgway finished eight of the eleven volumes of Bulletin 50 himself.

    Birders know well that the healthiest, most dynamic choruses contain many different voices. The birding community encompasses a wide variety of interests, talents, and convictions. All are welcome.
    If you like birding, we want to hear from you.
    Read More »

    Recent Comments

    • Rare Bird Alert: September 26, 2014 « ABA Blog { […] vagrants to the Pribilofs highlighted by the ABA’s 5th and, incredibly, the 6th records of  Wood Warbler (ABA Code 5). Other nice finds on... }
    • JB, in Hands-Off PhoneSkoping... { Galaxy Note 4 case is going to be out at the end of October. I'm very excited. }
    • AJ-birdwatcher, in ABA Checklist Committee Adds Egyptian Goose to ABA Checklist... { I finally identified large flocks of Egyptian Geese on both the campus of FAU in Boca Raton and Boca Regional Hospital lakes. Is there a... }
    • Frank Izaguirre, in Crickets. Seriously.... { Ted, something about this essay made me realize that my desire to see lifebirds and to read every book that ever won a John Burroughs... }
    • Ted Floyd, in New Field Marks... { The recent issue of Birding has an article on a new field mark for separating Black-tailed and Hudsonian godwits: http://aba.org/birding/2014-JUL-AUG/Birding_14-4_TOC.pdf }
    • Older »

    Categories

    Authors

    Archives

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    • Velociraptors and Moving Rocks: Notes from Camp Colorado September 21, 2014 2:01
      My week at Camp Colorado started off a few hours behind schedule. After my brother and I boarded our plane, we learned that the plane had a broken seal, and would not be flying us to Denver. We switched planes and got about an hour and a half out, when an elderly woman’s medical emergency […]
    • Young Birder Blog Birding #32 September 9, 2014 9:09
      Though breeding songbirds have essentially fallen silent, August can be a very enjoyable month for birding—and it can be enjoyed in very different ways. […]
    • Open Mic: My First Breeding Bird Survey August 12, 2014 8:22
      When I got asked to go on my first Breeding Bird Survey with one of our areas top birders, I jumped at the opportunity! I met Katie Koch, a US Fish and Wildlife Service bird biologist at 4:45am. That was the earliest time I've been birding by 15 minutes. […]

    Follow ABA on Twitter

    Nature Blog Network