3 The New York Years (1931–1953)

Classification 329
different sequences were proposed by Amadon (1957) and by Delacour and Vaurie
(1957). As briefly discussed by Mayr (1958e), this diversity of opinion was not very
practical. A standard sequence was never agreed upon, although most authors
followed the sequence adopted in the Check-list during later years. Mayr (1965r)
commented on the unfortunate situation approaching “scientific anarchy” that 5
or 6 different sequences of passerine families were in use at that time. Also, within
families, some authors had proposed to list genera and species alphabetically like
K. Gesner and W. Turner 400 years ago. This seemed inadvisable, because very
dissimilar species would often be placed next to each other in lists and museum
collections. The search for a natural grouping of species must continue. Mayr
(1965l) published the reasoning for several deviations adopted in the sequence of
species of the Indo-Australian Zosteropidae to be covered in the next volume of the
Check-list. Similarly, he (1968c) presented the classification and sequence of genera
in the Estrildidae followed in the Check-list. This complex family was treated by
three authors. Mayr had prepared a preliminary list which was circulated to seven
specialists. Their answers to a questionnaire of 19 questions were used to prepare
the final list of genera which gives higher weight to behavioral characters than to
plumage patterns. I mention these details to illustrate how serious Mayr took the
preparation and editing of the Check-list volumes. He is the author or coauthor
of the catalogues of 25 families, more than any other colleague, and he had the
major responsibility for the entire project. He oversaw publication of volumes 8–15
and revised volume 1. One can sympathize with him, when he inscribed the final
volume (1986) to Walter Bock: “At last the millstone is off my neck!”
On several occasions Mayr (1959e, 1976i, 1980d) reviewed the status of macrotaxonomy
or the classification of birds emphasizing that in contrast to the “science
of the species” during the period of “new systematics,” little progress had been
made in the understanding of the arrangement of species into genera, families,
orders and super-orders. He referred repeatedly to Erwin Stresemann’s (1959:
277–278) well-known pessimistic statement:
“In view of the continuing absence of trustworthy information on the relationship
of the highest categories of birds to each other it becomes strictly a matter
of convention how to group them into orders. Science ends where comparative
morphology, comparative physiology, comparative ethology have failed us after
nearly 200 years of efforts. The rest is silence.”
For most of the 28 orders of birds usually recognized there was no certainty
which other order is its nearest relative. Almost half of all bird families contain
only one or two genera whose nearest relatives are unknown. Moreover, numerous
additional genera actually are “incertae sedis” and only very tentatively assigned
to one or the other larger family. The symposia and discussion groups at the
International Ornithological Congresses at Canberra (1974) and Berlin (1978),
which Mayr and Bock, respectively, convened showed a renewed interest in the
many open problems in the classification of birds at higher taxonomic levels. The
reasons for this interest were the discovery of new characters and the controversies
on several new theories of classification (see above).