North American Perspectives on the

Development of Public Relations: Other

Voices 1st Edition Tom Watson (Eds.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/north-american-perspectives-on-the-development-of-
public-relations-other-voices-1st-edition-tom-watson-eds/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The House 1st Edition Tom Watson

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-house-1st-edition-tom-
watson/

Police and the Policed: Language and Power Relations on

the Margins of the Global South Danielle Watson

https://textbookfull.com/product/police-and-the-policed-language-
and-power-relations-on-the-margins-of-the-global-south-danielle-
watson/

Postcolonial Perspectives on the European High North:

Unscrambling the Arctic 1st Edition Graham Huggan

https://textbookfull.com/product/postcolonial-perspectives-on-
the-european-high-north-unscrambling-the-arctic-1st-edition-
graham-huggan/

lacanian ink 29 From an Other to the other Josefina

Ayerza

https://textbookfull.com/product/lacanian-ink-29-from-an-other-
to-the-other-josefina-ayerza/
Public Relations 1st Edition Laura Lee

https://textbookfull.com/product/public-relations-1st-edition-
laura-lee/

Strategic planning for public relations Fourth Edition.

Edition Public Relations Ronald D. Smith

https://textbookfull.com/product/strategic-planning-for-public-
relations-fourth-edition-edition-public-relations-ronald-d-smith/

The Persian War in Herodotus and Other Ancient Voices

General Military 1st Edition Shepherd

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-persian-war-in-herodotus-
and-other-ancient-voices-general-military-1st-edition-shepherd/

The public relations firm First Edition Pritchard

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-public-relations-firm-first-
edition-pritchard/

Uncle Tom s Cabin on the American Stage and Screen 1st

Edition John W. Frick (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/uncle-tom-s-cabin-on-the-
american-stage-and-screen-1st-edition-john-w-frick-auth/
 NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC RELATIONS
Series Editor: Tom Watson

NORTH AMERICAN
PERSPECTIVES ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF
PUBLIC RELATIONS

Other Voices

Edited by
Tom Watson
National Perspectives on the Development
of Public Relations

Series Editor
Tom Watson
Faculty of Media & Communication
Bournemouth University
Poole, UK
Aims of the Series
The history of public relations has long been presented in a corporatist
framework. The National Perspectives on the Development of Public
Relations: Other Voices series is the first to offer an authentic worldwide
view of the history of public relations freed from this influence. The series
features seven books, six of which cover continental and regional groups
including (Book 1) Asia and Australasia, (Book 2) Eastern Europe and
Russia, (Book 3) Middle East and Africa, (Book 4) Latin America and
Caribbean, (Book 5) Western Europe, and this volume (Book 7) North
America. The sixth volume featured five essays on new and revised histo-
riographic and theoretical approaches. Written by leading public relations
historians and scholars, some histories of national public relations devel-
opment are offered for the first time while others are reinterpreted using
new archival sources and other historiographical approaches. The National
Perspectives on the Development of Public Relations: Other Voices series makes
a major contribution to the wider knowledge of PR’s history.

More information about this series at

http://www.springer.com/series/14757
 Tom Watson
Editor

North American
Perspectives on the
Development of
Public Relations
Other Voices
Editor
Tom Watson
Faculty of Media & Communication
Bournemouth University
Poole, UK

National Perspectives on the Development of Public Relations

ISBN 978-1-349-95043-0 ISBN 978-1-349-95044-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/978-1-349-95044-7

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016946972

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd. London
This series is dedicated to my wife, Jenny, who has endured three decades
of my practice and research in public relations (‘I’ll be finished soon’
has been my response to her on too many occasions), and to the scholars
and practitioners who have embraced and contributed so much to the
International History of Public Relations Conference. They have come
to Bournemouth University each year from around the world and
reinvigorated the scholarship of public relations history. I hope everyone
enjoys this series and are inspired to develop their research.

Tom Watson
 SERIES EDITOR’S PREFACE

This series will make a major contribution to the history and historiogra-
phy of public relations (PR). Until recently publications and conference
papers have focused mainly on American tropes that PR was invented in
the USA, although there have been British and German challenges to this
claim. There are, however, emerging narratives that public relations-type
activity developed in many countries in other bureaucratic and cultural
forms that only came in contact with Anglo-American practice recently.
The scholarship of public relations has largely been driven by US per-
spectives with a limited level of research undertaken in the UK and Central
Europe. This has been reflected in general PR texts, which mostly tell
the story of PR’s development from the US experience. Following the
establishment of the International History of Public Relations Conference
(IHPRC), first held in 2010, it is evident there is increasing level of
research, reflection and scholarship outside Anglo-America and Central
European orbits.
From IHPRC and a recent expansion of publishing in public relations
academic journals, new national perspectives on the formation of public
relations structures and practices are being published and discussed. Some
reflect Anglo-American influences while others have evolved from national
cultural and communication practices with a sideways glace at interna-
tional practices.
I am attached to the notion of ‘other’ both in its postmodern con-
cept and a desire to create a more authentic approach to the history of
public relations. It was the UK public relations scholar and historian

vii
viii SERIES EDITOR’S PREFACE

Professor Jacquie L’Etang who first used ‘the other’ in discussion with
me. It immediately encapsulated my concerns about some recent histori-
cal writing, especially from countries outside Western Europe and North
America. There was much evidence that ‘Western hegemonic public rela-
tions’ was influencing authors to make their national histories conform to
the primacy of the USA. Often it was processed through the four models
of Grunig and Hunt (1984). This approach did not take account of the
social, cultural and political forces that formed each nation’s approach to
PR. It was also dull reading.
National Perspectives on the Development of Public Relations: Other
Voices will be the first series to bring forward these different, sometimes
alternative and culturally diverse national histories of public relations in
a single format. Some will be appearing for the first time. In this series,
national narratives are introduced and discussed, enabling the develop-
ment of new or complementary theories on the establishment of public
relations around the world.
Overall, the series has three aims:

• Introduce national perspectives on the formation of public relations

practices and structures in countries outside Western Europe and
North America;
• Challenge existing US-centric modeling of public relations;
• Aid the formation of new knowledge and theory on the formation of
public relations practices and structures by offering accessible publi-
cations of high quality.

Six of the seven books focus on national public relations narratives which
are collected together on a continental basis: Asia and Australasia, Eastern
Europe and Russia, Middle East and Africa, Latin America and Caribbean,
Western Europe and North America. The other book addresses historio-
graphic interpretations and theorization of public relations history.
Rather than requesting authors to write in a prescribed format which
leaves little flexibility, they have been encouraged to research and write
historical narratives and analysis that are pertinent to a particular country
or region. My view is that a national historical account of public relations’
evolution will be more prized and exciting to read if the author is encour-
aged to present a narrative of how it developed over one or more particular
periods (determined by what is appropriate in that country), considering
why one or two particular PR events or persons (or none) were impor-
tant in that country, reviewing cultural traditions and interpretations of
 SERIES EDITOR’S PREFACE ix

historical experiences, and theorizing development of public relations into

its present state. Chapters without enforced consistency to the structure
and focus have enabled the perspectives and voices from the different
countries to be told in a way that is relevant to their histories.
A more original discussion follows in the historiography and theoriza-
tion book because the series editor and fellow contributors offer a more
insightful commentary on the historical development in the regions, iden-
tifying contextualized emergent theoretical frameworks and historiogra-
phy that values differences, rather than attempting to ‘test’ an established
theoretical framework or historiographic approach.

Tom Watson
twatson@bournemouth.ac.uk, tom.watson1709@gmail.com

REFERENCE
Grunig, J., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
 CONTENTS

1 Introduction 1
Tom Watson

2 United States–Antecedents and Proto-PR 5

Cayce Myers

3 United States–Development and Expansion

of Public Relations 21
Margot Opdycke Lamme, Karen Miller Russell,
Denise Hill, and Shelley Spector

4 Canada—Development and Expansion of Public Relations 37

Amy Thurlow

5 Public Relations Education and the Development

of Professionalization in Canada and the USA 51
Donald K. Wright and Terence (Terry) Flynn

6 Government Public Relations in Canada

and the United States 65
Mordecai Lee, Fraser Likely, and Jean Valin

xi
xii CONTENTS

7 Entertainment Publicity and Public Relations 81

Donn J. Tilson

8 Political Communications and Lobbying

in the United States 97
Edward J. Downes, Dustin W. Supa, and Esther Austin

9 The Historiography of North American Public Relations 113

Karla K. Gower

Index 127
 CONTRIBUTORS

Esther Austin is an MA candidate at the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global

Studies at Boston University, studying International Relations and International
Communications. She is currently a research assistant to Dr Edward J. Downes.
Her research focuses on nationalism and militarism in the Saharawi refugee camps
near Tindouf, Algeria, as well as politics and reproductive health in Sub-Saharan
Africa.
Edward J. Downes PhD MPA, is an associate professor in Boston University’s
College of Communication. Prior to joining academia full-time he worked for ten
years in Washington, DC, holding positions ranging from Lyndon Baines Johnson
Congressional Intern to campaign organizer. His studies have appeared in peer-
reviewed journals and his first book, Press Secretary: The Story of Capitol Hill’s
Communication Managers, will be published soon.
Terence (Terry) Flynn PhD, is one of Canada’s leading public relations/com-
munications management scholars and an important bridge between the academy
and the profession. A former president of the Canadian Public Relations Society,
Terry is currently on the faculty of the Department of Communication Studies &
Multimedia at McMaster University.
Karla K. Gower PhD, is the Behringer Distinguished Professor and director of
The Plank Center for Leadership in Public Relations in the College of
Communication and Information Sciences at the University of Alabama. She is the
author of a book on media relations since World War II and two on communication
law topics and the co-author of a book on racial issues, the media and the Cold
War. In addition, her articles have appeared in numerous academic journals.

xiii
xiv CONTRIBUTORS

Denise Hill PhD APR, is an assistant professor at Elon University’s School of

Communications, where she teaches strategic communication and corporate com-
munication at the undergraduate and graduate levels.
Margot (Meg) Opdycke Lamme PhD APR, is a professor in the Department of
Advertising and Public Relations at the University of Alabama, where she teaches
public relations and communication history classes at undergraduate and graduate
levels.
Mordecai Lee PhD, is a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He
authored Promoting the War Effort: Robert Horton and Federal Propaganda
(2012), Congress vs. the Bureaucracy: Muzzling Agency Public Relations (2011)
and The First Presidential Communications Agency: FDR’s Office of Government
Reports (2005). He co-edited The Practice of Government Public Relations (2012)
and edited Government Public Relations: A Reader (2008). Previously he had been
elected to five terms in the Wisconsin State Legislature and then headed a faith-
based advocacy NGO.
Fraser Likely MA APR FCPRS FAMEC, Emeritus Member IPR Measurement
Commission founded Likely Communication Strategies, a communication man-
agement consultancy focused on improving PR/Communication department
organization, performance and value, in 1987. He is an adjunct professor at the
University of Ottawa. He has led two large international research teams of academ-
ics and practitioners from around the world examining (1) the factors that influence
the organizational structure of PR/C departments and (2) the standardization of
multi-stage PR/C measurement models.
Cayce Myers PhD JD LLM, is an assistant professor of public relations in the
Department of Communication at Virginia Tech. His research focuses on the early
development of American public relations in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
and explores public relations’ role in religious, political, corporate, entertainment
and social movement contexts. His work has appeared in Public Relations Review,
Journal of Communication Management, Journalism History, Media History and
American Journalism.
Karen Miller Russell PhD, Jim Kennedy Professor of New Media in the Grady
College of Journalism and Mass Communication teaches public relations and
media history at the University of Georgia.
Shelley Spector is president of New York-based public relations agency Spector &
Associates. She is also founder of The Museum of Public Relations (www.prmu-
seum.org) and is on the corporate communications faculty of Baruch College,
CUNY.
Dustin W. Supa PhD, is an associate professor in Boston University’s College of
Communication.
 CONTRIBUTORS xv
Amy Thurlow PhD APR, is an associate professor in the Department of
Communication Studies at Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Canada,
where she teaches public relations management, communication studies and orga-
nizational communication. Grounded in an approach of critical theory, her research
looks at the impact of communication on organizational change, the role of power
and legitimation in the construction of identities and the relationship between
history and theory in understandings of knowledge production.
Donn J. Tilson PhD, associate professor at the University of Miami, has pub-
lished and lectured internationally on public relations, religion and culture includ-
ing as a Fulbright Scholar at the University of Ottawa. His book, The Promotion of
Devotion: Saints, Celebrities and Shrines (2011) is a pioneering work in the field. A
member of the Public Relations Society of America’s College of Fellows, he is
developing research, curriculum and programming on social responsibility and
interfaith dialogue.
Jean Valin BA, APR, FCPRS LM, founded Valin Strategic Communications after
a 30-year career in the federal government—the last 14 as a head of communica-
tions. He is a founding member and past chairman of the Global Alliance for
Public Relations and Communication Management—an umbrella organization
comprising more than 160,000 professionals—and has led several projects leading
to the adoption of global standards. He is co-editor of the textbook Public Relations
Case Studies from Around the World.
Tom Watson PhD, is Emeritus Professor in the Faculty of Media & Communication
at Bournemouth University, UK. Before entering academic life, Tom’s career cov-
ered journalism and public relations in Australia, the UK and internationally. He ran
a successful public relations consultancy in England for 18 years and was chairman
of the UK’s Public Relations Consultants Association from 2000 to 2002. Tom’s
research focuses on professionally important topics such as measurement and eval-
uation, reputation management and corporate social responsibility. He also
researches and writes on public relations history and established the annual
International History of Public Relations Conference in 2010.
Donald K. Wright PhD, is the Harold Burson Professor and Chair in Public
Relations at Boston University’s College of Communication. He is a past president
of the International Public Relations Association, served 24 years on the Board of
Trustees of the Arthur W. Page Society and has served more than 20 years on the
Board of Trustees of the Institute for Public Relations. A native of Canada, he has
taught and practiced public relations in both Canada and the USA.
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Tom Watson

Abstract North American public relations practices, education and profes-

sionalization have been and remain the major influences upon worldwide
practice. They also presented the field’s history as having arisen from prac-
tices in the United States in the 20th century. That proposition has been
challenged and is being revised by scholars within North America and
beyond. This seventh book in the National Perspectives on the Development
of Public Relations: Other Voices series offers a range of historical research
and analysis that reshape the history and historiography of the region.

Keywords History • North America • Public Relations • Revision

When the National Perspectives on the Development of Public Relations:

Other Voices series was planned in 2013, a volume on North America was
not initially included in its six volumes. Obviously, this view changed as
evidenced by this book. For most readers, this may be a matter of indif-
ference as they will be reading it for the range of topics that it offers.
There are, however, historiographic reasons for the addition of this

T. Watson (*)
Bournemouth University, Poole, UK
e-mail: twatson@bournemouth.ac.uk

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 1

T. Watson (ed.), North American Perspectives on the Development
of Public Relations, National Perspectives on the Development
of Public Relations, DOI 10.1057/978-1-349-95044-7_1
2 T. WATSON

v­ olume, which unlike five others in the series, has more than a single
chapter on a nation or region.
Among critiques of much extant research and writing on the history of
public relations from US authors, in particular, has been an assumption that
public relations (PR) is an invention from their nation. There was also lack of
interest in forms, practices and theorization of public relations that have arisen
in other countries. L’Etang (2008) has commented acidly: “US scholars have
always tended to assume that activities referred to as PR have been invented by
Americans and exported elsewhere” (p. 328). This attitude is exemplified in
Doug Newsom’s comment in 1984 that: “Public relations is an occupation,
some would say a profession, of uniquely US origin” (p. 30). More than 30
years later, I am sure that Professor Newsom’s view would have changed but it
has been a typical historical expression in major US-written public relations
texts used around the world. Alongside it has been the progressive model of
PR’s development, onward and upward in ever-increasing sophistication and
ethical practice. This model is offered widely in textbooks and through Grunig
and Hunt’s four models of public relations practice (1984), which start with
the low ethics of press agentry and move upward to two-way symmetrical com-
munication. Although the models have been revised over time, the original
four models of 1984 have been taught widely around the world and accepted
by many as being accurate representations of the development of PR.
Since the early 1990s, there have been challenges to the standing histo-
riography of PR in North America. These started with low rumbles
(Pearson 1992; Miller 2000) even as Cutlip’s two major books with their
progressivist history of PR in the USA (Cutlip 1994, 1995) were being
published. During the past 15 years, the low rumble has increased to overt
challenge. The primacy of the progressive model has been widely ­criticized;
the attitude that PR evolved from corporate and agency bases sometime
early in the twentieth century has been debunked, notably by Lamme and
Russell (2010); the under-researched role of women in PR’s evolution has
been identified and is being addressed in Canada and the USA; the role of
activism in PR’s development in North America is being recognized; and
the formation of PR in Canada has moved from being presented as a
­sideshow to the USA to a very separate experience with strong links to
governmental and organizational communications. As well, specialist
practices such as governmental communication, lobbying and political
communication, entertainment publicity and PR, and the professionaliza-
tion of the field have been researched as major topics. The historiography
of PR in North America has begun being revised in the past decade, too,
with extensive consideration of antecedents, proto-PR and the role of
those who did not self-identify as PR practitioners. The role of “great
men” such as Ivy Lee, Edward Bernays, and, to a lesser extent, Arthur
Page in the formation of PR has been contested and played down.
 INTRODUCTION 3

There is no doubt that North America, especially the USA, has

exerted greater influence on the development of PR around the world
than any other region. There is plentiful evidence for this assertion in
the first five books of this series. It is also the largest single region in the
world for the education and employment of practitioners; its profes-
sional and industry bodies exert major international influence upon the
development of practices and the design of education and training.
These leadership factors have also been important in the decision to add
this volume to the series. Over time, as the series rolled out, it became
evident that, although many nations and regions have developed
national or indigenous forms of PR within their borders, there is an
Anglo-American form of “international PR” that is practiced widely
through globalized corporations and their mostly US-owned PR agency
advisers. Thus it is valid to take a deeper and broader view of PR’s his-
tory and development in North America.
This volume, in addition to the specific chapter on historiography, has
several discussions about historiography and historical theorization of p ­ ublic
relations. At a time when the revision of PR’s history in North America is
under way, this should not only be expected but also welcomed even when
authors take differing interpretations. It is hoped that this ­volume will play
an important role in reshaping the history of North American PR to portray
more accurately antecedents, evolution, failures, successes and the width
of participation, including gender and race, than heretofore.

References
Cutlip, S. M. (1994). The unseen power: Public relations, a history. Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cutlip, S. M. (1995). Public relations history: From the 17th to the 20th century.
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt
Rinehart & Winston.
Lamme, M. O., & Miller, K. R. (2010). Removing the spin: towards a new theory
of public relations history. Journalism & Communication Monographs, 11(4),
281–362.
L’Etang, J. (2008). Writing PR history: Issues, methods and politics. Journal of
Communication Management, 12(4), 319–335.
Miller, K. S. (2000). U.S. public relations history: Knowledge and limitations.
Communication Yearbook, 23, 381–420.
Newsom, D. (1984). Public relations and the question of provinciality. IPRA
Review, 8(3), 30–31.
Pearson, R. (1992). Perspectives in public relations history. In E. Toth & R. Heath
(Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations. Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
 CHAPTER 2

United States Antecedents and Proto-PR

Cayce Myers

Abstract This chapter examines the use of the term “public relations” in
the popular press from 1774 to 1899. Frequently public relations history
places the beginnings of PR in the late nineteenth century with a genesis
in entertainment and later business. This examination of the use of the
term “public relations” shows that public relations in the eighteenth and
nineteenth century was related to politics, specifically international affairs,
domestic relations, and political popularity.

Keywords Business PR • Government PR • Proto-PR • Public relations

history • PR antecedents

US ANTECEDENTS AND PROTO-PUBLIC RELATIONS

American proto-public relations history is subject to many myths, misper-
ceptions, and inaccuracies. Perhaps foremost among these historical myths
is that US public relations began with late-nineteenth-century press agentry.

C. Myers ()
Virginia Tech, 181 Turner Street NW,
Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
e-mail: mcmyers@vt.edu

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 5

T. Watson (ed.), North American Perspectives on the Development
of Public Relations, National Perspectives on the Development
of Public Relations, DOI 10.1057/978-1-349-95044-7_2
6 C. MYERS

This myth, perpetuated by Bernays (1952) and Grunig and Hunt’s four
models of public relations (Grunig and Hunt 1984), has been retold to the
point it has become an accepted truth in many PR histories. However, aside
from its inaccuracy, this view of American public relations history poses
some larger theoretical issues. First, American PR history is not congruent
with non-US PR histories. European PR scholars have shown that politics,
not entertainment, was a major harbinger of public relations development
(Bentele 2010; Bentele and Grazyna-Maria 1996; L’Etang 2004; Watson
2014). Second, identifying public relations’ beginning in the late nine-
teenth century overlooks the historical complexity of the practice. Focusing
US PR’s beginnings in the late nineteenth century excludes the political,
social, and religious influences that created professional PR. This chapter
attempts to show the beginnings of public relations by analyzing proto-
public relations history, a history prior to institutionalized PR practice. The
nuances of early American proto-PR is seen in an analysis of the term
“public relations” in the US popular press form 1774 to 1899.
In American public relations history there is an inaccurate periodization
of PR development that was heavily influenced by Grunig and Hunt’s
(1984) four models of public relations. Though not a historical theory,
the four models of public relations’ influence on PR historiography is
readily seen in many works (Hoy et al. 2007). The Grunig and Hunt
(1984) models lend themselves to an interpretation of PR history that
argues early press agentry gave way to an ever-increasing complex and
more ethical corporate public relations practice that dominated the twen-
tieth century. However, Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) four models mirror
other public relations histories written by Cutlip and Center (1958),
Cutlip (1994, 1995), and even Bernays (1952, 1965). Outside of public
relations research, business scholars Chandler (1977); Tedlow (1979) and
Marchand (1998) followed a similar narrative about media, corporate
communication, and PR development. This type of historical trajectory is
influenced by twentieth-century public relations figures such as Bernays
(1965) who claimed he coined the idea of “counsel on public relations”
(p. 287). In fact, in his autobiography Bernays (1965) claimed that in the
early twentieth century that he never “heard of the words ‘public relations,’
because they were not in general use” (p. 287).
Criticisms of these early narratives of public relations have increased
(Coombs and Holladay 2012; Gower 2008; Miller 2000; Myers 2014;
Olasky 1984, 1987; Watson 2014).Outside the USA, scholars have exam-
ined countries’ development of public relations finding that the American
model of PR development is not ubiquitous (Bentele 2012; Bentele and
Grazyna-Maria 1996; L’Etang 2004; Watson 2014). Lamme and Russell
(2010) also found that American public relations historiography was
 UNITED STATES ANTECEDENTS AND PROTO-PR 7

largely lacking. They concluded that US public relations development

showed influences of politics, religion, nonprofit, businesses, and educa-
tion preceded modern public relations.
In examining early public relations a few studies have, however, explored
the terms associated with early PR (Myers 2015a, 2015b; Russell and
Bishop 2009; Stoker and Rawlins 2005).The origin of the term “public
relations” is somewhat unknown in PR historiography. Scholars can look to
either Bernays’s testimonials or the received history of public relations from
scholars such as Cutlip (1994, 1995) who rooted the term in the late-nine-
teenth- and early-twentieth-century corporate world. This chapter fills this
historical gap by exploring the definition of the word “public relations” in
the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century American press. From this analysis,
the chapter describes how the term “public relations” was used and if it is
related to modern understandings of public relations practice. Given the
current literature on early public relations practice, this study poses three
research questions: how was public relations used as a term in US newspa-
pers from the eighteenth and nineteenth century; who practiced “public
relations” during the eighteenth and nineteenth century; and how was
“public relations” practiced during the eighteenth and nineteenth century?
To analyze eighteenth- and nineteenth-century use of “public relations”
three databases storing historical newspapers were used. All databases were
keyword searched using the term “public relations” to find articles that
specifically used the term. The historical timeframe searched was 1700 to
1899. The year 1700 was used as a beginning date because the study
wanted to capture any eighteenth-century use of public relations. The year
1899 was used as an end date because historical studies show that the
twentieth century saw a dramatic shift in corporate structure and public
relations practice. The historical newspaper databases included Accessible
Archives, American Historical Newspapers, and Historical Newspapers
Online (ProQuest). In total 270 articles were retained for this study that
contained the words “public relations,” either in the body of each article
or its headline ranging from the years 1774 to 1899. These articles were
organized chronologically and analyzed in terms of how the term “public
relations” was used in the article, who the article said was responsible for
public relations, and how the term public relations changed over time.

PUBLIC RELATIONS AS INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

The early use of the term “public relations” appears most often in context
with international diplomacy or international relations. In fact, within this
sample “public relations” used in context with international relations
appeared in over 100 articles from 1803 to 1880.
8 C. MYERS

These references to “public relations” in an international context

almost always placed “public relations” as being linked with the USA. In
this sense, the USA had its own “public relations” that varied depending
on the countries it was involved with. In this sample the US “public rela-
tions” involved diplomatic relationships with a variety of European, South
American, and Asian nations (Charleston Courier 1826, p. 2; City Gazette
and Daily Advertiser 1803, p. 2; New York Times 1861, p. 2; Richmond
Enquirer 1826, p. 2). Other articles discussed “public relations” as political
issues within an administration or how “public relations” with an interna-
tional country affected US citizens (New-York Spectator 1807; American
Mercury 1811, p. 2; New York Times 1859, p. 4).
The use of the term “public relations” in context with US international
relations took on various meanings of economic interaction, peace, war,
and as political issues affecting American citizens (The Public Advertiser
1807, p. 2; New-England Palladium 1808, p. 2; New-York Spectator
1807, p. 2). This means that as a whole, “public relations” was a general
term meaning relationship between nation states. “Public relations” could
be good, bad, neutral, or even nonexistent. These “public relations”
between nations also meant the relationship had an official sanctioning by
the US government in which the President frequently was held responsi-
ble. An 1803 article from the Republic comments on the political over-
tones within international public relations. It said, “In such an event our
safety demands an administration firm, clear sighted and vigilant; prompt
to determine, and vigorous to act, just in its public relations” (Republican
1803, p. 2). The control of public relations was recognized as a privilege
of the President. This caused concern in 1808 when a Member of Congress
asked President Thomas Jefferson what level of control he had over for-
eign ministers. The Congressman wrote, “Can a subordinate officer invade
one of the highest prerogatives of government so as thereby to change the
public relations of his country from peace to war?” (New-England
Palladium 1808, p. 2). External events were recognized as changing
rapidly and having unintentional effects on the USA. Thomas Jefferson’s
1807 address to Congress used the term “public relations” in reference
other nations’ diplomacy to explain how external world events outside of
US control that might affect the US economy (The Public Advertiser
1807, p. 2).
The term “public relations” was also used in context with personal
relationships that had international implications. In 1856, the Charleston
Courier noted that the government “suffers in its public relations” in
Brazil because the US Minister’s communications with the US govern-
ment were too slow (Charleston Courier 1856, p. 4). Another article
commented directly on “public relations” requiring a certain type of trust
 UNITED STATES ANTECEDENTS AND PROTO-PR 9

within the relationship between the countries. In 1857 the New York
Daily Times wrote:

In the world of public relations, as in the world of private intercourse, it

is true that a mood of permanent suspicion and distrust is just as fatal to
any attempt at successful diplomacy between great and enlightened nations
(New York Daily Times 1857, p. 4).

PUBLIC RELATIONS AS US DOMESTIC POLITICS

Even in the nineteenth century domestic and foreign policy “public rela-
tions” were recognized as distinct from each other. An 1806 article from
the City Gazette and Daily Advertiser stated:

Yet as the people have never taken the constitutional measure that was
necessary to alter it, and as our public relations, both foreign and domes-
tic, appear to require a cautious policy (City Gazette and Daily Advertiser
1806, p. 2).

This quote is illustrative of how public relations was discussed in domes-

tic politics. “Public relations” was always considered in context of the
USA or the official policies of the President’s administration. The citizenry
of the USA was also involved in creating a type of response to these public
relations. The first example of the use of “public relations” in a domestic
political context appears in 1774 in the Essex Journal and Merrimack
Packet which discussed the interaction of the citizens of Boston and British
soldiers. It said:

We find no account in the Boston papers of the affray in the place last week,
between several officers and some of the inhabitants: Indeed the conduct of
the former, as we are told, was so detestably savage and obscene as to render
a particular public relation thereof improper (Essex Journal and Merrimack
Packet 1774, p. 3).

Here, the public relations is in context with government behavior

toward the citizens. In fact, citizens’ responses are tied to government
domestic relations or domestic “public relations.” The Philadelphia
Gazette in 1795 cited “public relations” as the reason George Washington
used the term “self-created” in a speech (The Philadelphia Gazette and
Universal Daily Advertiser 1795 p. 2).
The use of the term “public relations” as related to domestic issues
took on a variety of subjects. A citizen in early Detroit wrote that the
“public relations” between white settlers and Native Americans “are
10 C. MYERS

becoming more and more favorable to the [white] Americans, and the
time may not be distant when a majority of them will adhere to us in pref-
erence to any foreign power” (American Mercury, Sept. 18, 1806, p. 3).
Political parties were also part of domestic public relations frequently
referring to party stances on domestic issues. In 1809 a letter to the
“Electors of Massachusetts” the Federalist Party argued for the support of
Federalist Governor Christopher Gore whose “public relations” had not
changed on the tariff issues (Norfolk Repository 1809, p. 1). The use of the
term “public relations” coincided with the advocacy of political positions
within political parties. The New York Democratic-Republicans wrote that
their “public relations” required them to make “greater sacrifice of per-
sonal feeling to promote the general good” (The New-York Columbian
1817, p. 2).
Articles from the nineteenth century also characterized public relations
as a national attitude toward the US government generally. During the
Nullification Crisis of the 1820s and 1830s, one article wrote, “the union
of this confederation is the key stone to the whole fabric of our political
and national greatness, our civil and social prosperity. Let this sentiment
enter with religious solemnity into all our public relations with our
country” (Richmond Enquirer 1831, p. 2). In 1821, an article appeared
about the citizens of Massachusetts concern over the loss of Maine as part
of the Compromise of 1820. The Boston Commercial Gazette stated that
the loss of Maine affected Massachusetts’s citizens in their “welfare and
public relations” (Boston Commercial Gazette 1821, p. 1). During the
Civil War, public relations of the Confederacy was discussed in context
with the public relations of the USA. The Charleston Mercury stated that
“public relations” between the Confederacy and England would be diffi-
cult because the Confederacy was “a government recognizing the slavery
of a part of the human race” (Charleston Mercury 1862, p. 4). Post-Civil
War relationships between the citizens of the North and South were
defined as “public relations” of two distinct regions (The Constitution
1868, p. 2). Even race relations between black and white southerners was
mentioned as “public relations” in a New York Times article about President
Grant’s policy of giving clemency to members of the Ku Klux Klan (New
York Times 1873a, p. 5).
Domestic public relations frequently had values assigned to them, espe-
cially when these public relations affected citizens directly. One article
from The Albany Argus in 1820 commented on “the demoralized state of
our public relations” in reference to political bribes and corrupt public
policy (The Albany Argus 1820, p. 2). The term “public relations” was
detailed in a variety of positive domestic US contexts such as military
schools, legal codes, and the Vice President’s treatment of policies affect-
 UNITED STATES ANTECEDENTS AND PROTO-PR 11

ing New York State (The New-York Columbian 1820, p. 2; New York Times
1865, p. 4; New York Times 1876a, p. 3). However, these public relations
were always discussed in the context of what political entities, namely the
larger government, could do for its citizens. The government role in creat-
ing good public relations was restricted to men. However, women could
play a role according to one article from Godey’s Lady’s Book that said,
“The public relations of government are, as they should be, exclusively
under the care and guidance of men; but women may do much, very
much to promote the general harmony and happiness of the nation”
(Godeys Lady’s Book’s 1848).

PUBLIC RELATIONS AS CONSTITUENT RELATIONS

Articles during the nineteenth century equated public relations with the
individual “public relations.” As early as 1803 The Connecticut Centinel
printed a prayer that included the term “public relations.” It said, “That
HE [God] will be pleased to bless us in our private and public relations.
That He will guide the public councils and administration of the United
States” (The Connecticut Centinel 1803, p. 1).This prayer suggests that
“public councils and administration” included politicians within the realm
of “public relations” (The Connecticut Centinel 1803, p. 1). Politicians
themselves, however, had their own public relations that referred their
role as a public figure and their position crafting American policy.
A reference to a politician’s “public relations” first appeared in the sam-
ple from the Middlebury Mercury in an 1804 obituary of former
Congressman Jeremiah Wadsworth which said, “In all the private and
public relations of life, he was esteemed and respected” (Middlebury
Mercury 1804, p. 3). This suggests within these political lives there was a
dual sphere of interaction of politicians, both public and private. The con-
nection between a politician’s official public life and their private life did
exist as evidenced in an 1807 article regarding what voters can do to assist
in aiding the USA. It read:

Let him [the public] be assured that that his private and public relations are
so closely connected, so intimately interwoven, so reciprocally dependent on
each other, and so firmly dove-tailed that their security and prosperity must
stand of fall together (The People’s Friend and Daily Observer 1807, p. 2).

This role of public relations for politicians was extremely important and
applied to a variety of officeholders. For instance, the remembrance of
Judge Elmendorf in the Charleston Courier stated “he [the judge] was
held deservedly in high esteem, not less in private life than in his various
12 C. MYERS

public relations” (Charleston Courier 1843, p. 2). This positive descrip-

tion of public relations in political life is important because it linked the
actual office with requiring a certain degree of public relations. An 1844
Charleston Courier article regarding a state senator is illustrative of the way
“public relations” was characterized in the political sphere. It said, “In all
his [state senator] public relations, he has been characterized by his integ-
rity, and sound judgment; whilst as a private citizen, he is emphatically
without reproach” (Charleston Courier 1844, p. 2).
Having good “public relations” as a political officeholder was impor-
tant in the nineteenth century. Descriptions of public relations included
adjectives such as “clearness of express, sound and sensible views,”
“beyond reproach,” “esteemed,” “respected,” “confidence,” and “high
integrity” (Charleston Courier 1857, p. 1; New York Times 1875b, p. 4;
The Barre Patriot 1852 p. 4; The Pittsfield Sun 1849 p. 3; The Semi-Weekly
Eagle 1849, p. 2). This view of a politician’s public relations was related to
his qualifications as an officeholder and frequently became the subject of
political campaigns. Perhaps the most prevalent use of the term “public
relations” came in Andrew Jackson’s 1828 and 1832 presidential elections.
In 1828, James Madison wrote an endorsement describing the “public
relations” of Jackson stating “The recollection of the public relations in
which I stood to Gen. Jackson, while President, and the proofs given to
him of the high estimation in which he was held by me” (New-Hampshire
Gazette 1828, p. 2).
Public relations was not limited to campaign speech in Jackson’s cam-
paigns. In a congressional election, a candidate, Ebenezer Bradbury, was
subject to attacks on his “public relations” during the elections, but
emerged “unscathed” (Essex Gazette, 1833, p. 2). In 1856, The Pittsfield
Sun reported that the attack on presidential candidate Stephen Douglas’s
“public relations” was characterized by “a venom that could scarcely be
surpassed in malignity” (The Pittsfield Sun 1856, p. 2). One article from
1840 suggested previous “public relations” experience was a benefit for
anyone entering the political scene because it allowed them to have
“previous elevation” into public life (New Bedford Mercury 1840, p. 40).
Inexperience within “public relations” also was discussed in an 1890 New
York Times article. A candidate’s “public relations” was deemed by the
newspaper to be fair game in political debate. The New York Times said,
“Say what you like of a man in his public relations—but let his home and
family be sacred from intrusion” (New York Times 1873, p. 4).
During the nineteenth century a politician’s public relations was tied to
his official duties as an officeholder. In this context public relations for
politicians was linked with the voting public and American citizens who
were affected by these politicians’ official acts and behavior. An 1853
 UNITED STATES ANTECEDENTS AND PROTO-PR 13

St. Patrick’s toast to the President of the USA is illustrative of public rela-
tions being related to official duties. The toast said:

Whilst the entire country sincerely sympathize with him [the President] in
his recent domestic affection they hope that time may bring healing on his
wings, and that in his public relations, his policy may be marked by that high
sense of Constitutional justice (Charleston Courier 1858, p. 2).

Public relations as part of official duties were found in examples of

federal, state, and even international political figures. The Governor of
Vermont stated that his policy decisions were based upon his own “deliberate
inquiry” and would “influence me [him] in all my [his] public relations”
(The Semi-Weekly Eagle 1850, p. 1). One article even mentioned Prince
Napoleon hiring a new secretary whose “duties are to reply to letter and
applications, to arrange audiences, private or official visitors, and all that
affects the new pretender’s public relations” (New York Times 1879, p. 3).
Public relations was not exclusively used to describe the personal quali-
ties of politicians and their relationships with the public. James Madison
used “public relations” in context with interpersonal political relationships
in his speech declining his nomination for President by the Democratic
Party in 1828. Madison wrote:

Not with these considerations could I fail to combine, a recollection of the

public relations in which I stood to the distinguished individuals now divid-
ing the favor of their country, and the proofs given to both of the high
estimation they were held by me (Charleston Courier 1828, p. 2).

In 1860 the New York Times published an article about the retirement
of Senator D.L. Yulee in which the senator is quoted as saying that he is
“closing the public relations which have been so long maintained between
us [meaning him and a fellow Senator] (New York Times 1860, p. 2). In
speeches given during Representative H. Blount’s retirement from the
U.S. House of Representatives, several colleagues mentioned how “their
public relations [with Blount] are so soon to be severed” because of his
retirement (The Washington Post 1893, p. 4). These formal political rela-
tionships were the subject of interest. In 1873 a book by John W. Forney,
Anecdotes of Public Men, was mentioned in the New York Times as an
excellent political book. According to the Times, Forney was able to gain
insight into these politicians because of “the public relations of the
author…have brought him into intimate contact with many of the most
eminent American politicians” (New York Times 1873, p. 5).
14 C. MYERS

PERSONAL AND BUSINESS PUBLIC RELATIONS

While the majority of the articles examined in this study showed the term
“public relations” as linked with international or domestic politics, political
officials, and political policy, some used the term in non-political contexts.
Most common of these were describing a non-political person’s public rela-
tions. “Public relations” referring to a layperson’s own professional life
appeared first in this sample in an 1803 obituary of Dr. Tappan, a religious
scholar and pastor (Newburyport Herald 1803, p. 1). This use of public rela-
tions as associated with nonpolitical figures continued throughout the nine-
teenth century with the obituaries of professional men who had standing
within their communities (New York Daily Times 1854a, p. 3; New York Daily
Times 1854b, p. 1). All of these representations of laypersons’ individual
“public relations” related to their occupation and its position within society.
The term “public relations” was associated with their godliness, intellectual
ability, loyalty, civic engagement, entrepreneurship, and professional ability in
relation to clients (Farmer’s Cabinet’s 1879, p. 2; New York Times 1875, p. 6;
New Hampshire Patriot and State Gazette 1838, p. 3). Similar to politicians’
“public relations,” these obituaries also made a distinction between these
men’s “public relations” and private individual relationships.
The term “public relations” outside of politics is associated with image
management and reputation. As early as 1867, an article appeared in the
New York Times that suggested reputation was related to “public rela-
tions” (New York Times 1867, p. 3). The article detailed how some former
Confederate soldiers released from prison were relocating to Maryland.
The paper stated that moving to Maryland after their release did not
change their “public relations” as known Confederate sympathizers. One
Austrian prince’s “public relations” was affected by his affair with an older
woman (New York Times 1887, p. 2). Rudyard Kipling, the famous English
author, had “urbane public relations” after experiencing widespread
success in publishing (New York Times 1899, sec. BR269). However,
public relations was not limited to high-born or well-known people exclu-
sively. The Franklin Herald in 1816 published an article about the “public
relations” of drunkards whose “public relations” were that of “nuisances
or ciphers” within society (Franklin Herald 1816, p. 1).
Good public relations was important in these newspaper accounts.
However, some articles indicate that creating good public relations
required a certain degree of ability and experience. An individual or
organization had to reach a certain level of status before it had the ability
to engage in public relations. Such was the case with women. An 1871
article in The Revolution stated “women have been living half lives, caring
for domestic interests, but leaving their public relations to the care of any
 UNITED STATES ANTECEDENTS AND PROTO-PR 15

one [sic] who would manage them” (The Revolution 1871). In 1876, the
New York Times exclaimed that women in the USA should not serve on
board of directors for state agencies because they did not possess the skills
of public relations. Comparing American women with British women, the
New York Times pointed out that women in America needed more experi-
ence in handling administrative functions within boards. They wrote,
“Women in this country have not as yet had that training in the habit of
acting together and in public relations which is indispensable for good
administration” (New York Times 1876b, p. 4).
Administrative functions of public relations were important for
American businesses and businessmen. As early as 1816 “public relations”
was used in context with business. In an article from The Columbian editor
G.L. Holley argued for a “commercial paper” given that economic com-
plexity demanded a more business-focused journalism that included
advertising (Holley 1816, p. 2). Part of Holley’s reasoning was that older
forms of papers were inadequate since they served a different era where
“when commerce is limited and public relations few” (Holley 1816, p. 2).
In 1875 the New York Times discussed the “public relations” of an indi-
vidual business owner in context with a lawsuit against a rival business.
Princeton University announced that it would be forming a New York
City Alumni Chapter in 1886 to allow members “to discuss matters
bearing on the policy of the college and its public relations” (New York
Times 1885, p. 3)
Perhaps the most important use of public relations was that of the
expanding railroads. General Harrison of the Harrison and Morton
Railroad Club recognized the ever-expansive railroad industries of the
1880s. The Washington Post covered a speech given by the General in
which he discussed the nature of the recent regulations placed on railroad
companies by the federal government. Specifically, the General spoke on
the positives of having uniform railroad cars and track sizes and equated
this regulation to the important role railroads played in daily life. He said:

I do not doubt…that as those corporations [railroads] are not private cor-

porations, but are recognized by the law to which I have referred and by the
uniform decision of our courts as having public relations (The Washington
Post 1888, p. 2).

Railroads’ “public relations” were rooted in their regular interaction

with the public. This was because an increasing number of the American
public were railroad customers. In 1897, The Atlanta Constutition covered
a speech given by Martin Knapp who was then a member of the Interstate
Commerce Commission. Concern over the interaction of railroads and
16 C. MYERS

their customers suggests that the term “public relations” was applied to
railroads because their large-scale consumer interaction (The Atlanta
Constitution 1897, p. 6). In fact, this is reflected in the 1894 obituary of
railroad executive Robert Harris. The obituary in the New York Times said
“And this passion for justice extended to the public relations of the railroad
properties which he managed. He was always anxious that his railroad
should do its duty to the community which it served” (New York Times
1894, p. 4).

IMPLICATIONS FOR HISTORIOGRAPHY

Developing, managing, and maintaining good public relations is a theme
that is seen throughout these articles. This history shows a transformation
of public relations from something individuals and organizations had to
something individuals and organizations did. This analysis presents a PR
history that is similar to political PR development in Europe and shows
that US proto-public relations was not exclusively rooted in entertainment
press agentry. While professionalized PR practice came into being in the
late nineteenth century, the assertion that “public relations” was a deliber-
ate relationship-centered practice in early American political discourse
presents an alternative view of PR’s evolution in the USA. Perhaps the
genesis of press agentry and corporate public relations were the evolved
byproducts of the practices of this early “public relations.” It is evident the
most important characteristic of early “public relations” is that relation-
ships in PR were important. This is seen in the discussions about the
“public relations” between nations, politicians, government and citizens,
and businesses and their customers. This description suggests that “public
relations” was not only inherited as a term, but as a practice in modern PR.

REFERENCES
American Mercury. (1806). ‘Walpole, Sept. 12’, 18 September p. 3.
American Mercury. (1811). ‘From the Aurora’, 7 November p. 2.
Bentele, G. (2010).PR-Historiography, a functional-integrative strata model and
periods of German PR history. In Proceedings of the first international history of
public relations conference, Bournemouth, UK, 8–9 July 2010. https://micro-
sites.bournemouth.ac.uk/histor yofpr/files/2010/11/IHPRC-2010-
Proceedings.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2016.
Bentele, G. (2012). Is a general (and global) PR-historiography possible?
Questions, problems, proposals. In Proceedings of international history of public
relations conference 2012, Bournemouth, UK, 11 July 2012. https://micro-
sites.bournemouth.ac.uk/historyofpr//wp-content/uploads/2012/09/
IHPRC-2012-Presentations.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2016.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
moment he saw an animal of that species, though he showed no
symptoms of preparing for any defence. Bruce never heard that he
had any voice. During the day he was inclined to sleep, but became
restless and exceedingly unquiet as night came on.
Bruce describes his Fennec as about ten inches long; the tail, five
inches and a quarter, near an inch of it on the tip, black; from the
point of the fore-shoulder to that of the fore-toe, two inches and
seven-eighths; from the occiput to the point of the nose, two inches
and a half. The ears were erect, and three inches and three-eighths
long, with a plait or fold at the bottom on the outside; the interior
borders of the ears were thickly covered with soft white hair, but the
middle part was bare, and of a pink or rose colour; the breadth of the
ears was one inch and one eighth, and the interior cavity very large.
The pupil of the eye was large and black; the iris, deep blue. It had
thick and strong whiskers; the nose was sharp at the tip, black and
polished. The upper jaw was projecting; the number of cutting teeth
in each jaw, six, those in the under jaw the smallest; canine teeth,
two in each jaw, long, large, and exceedingly pointed; the number of
molar teeth, four on each side, above and below. The legs were
small; feet very broad, with four toes, armed with crooked, black, and
sharp claws on each; those on the fore-feet more crooked and sharp
than those behind. The colour of the body was dirty white, bordering
on cream-colour; the hair on the belly rather whiter, softer and longer
than on the rest of the body. His look was sly and wily. Bruce adds
that the Fennec builds his nest on trees, and does not burrow in the
earth.
Illiger, in his generic description of Megalotis, states the number of
molar teeth on each side of the upper jaw to be six, but gives no
account of those in the lower; nor does it appear on what authority
he describes the teeth at all, or where he inspected his type. In other
respects, his description agrees pretty closely with that given by
Bruce.
Sparman[82] took the Fennec to be of the species he has called
Zerda, a little animal found in the sands of Cambeda, near the Cape
of Good Hope; and Pennant and Gmelin have called Bruce’s animal,
after Sparman, Canis cerdo; Brander considered it as a species of
fox; Blumenbach rather as belonging to the Viverræ. Illiger quotes
Lacépède as having made a distinct genus of it, Fennecus[83], and
has himself placed it as one, under the name of Megalotis, in the
order Falculata, in the same family with, and immediately preceding
the genera Canis and Hyena.
M. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, assuming Bruce’s account to be
imperfect and inaccurate, supposes that the Fennec is neither more
nor less than a Galago; but M. Desmarest differs from him in opinion,
and places it in a situation analogous to that assigned it by Illiger, at
the end of the Digitigrades, in the order Carnassiers. Cuvier merely
takes the following short notice of this animal in a note, “Le Fennec
de Bruce que Gmelin a nommé Canis cerdo, et Illiger Megalotis, est
trop peu connu pour pouvoir être classé. C’est un petit animal
d’Afrique, dont les oreilles égalent presque le corps en grandeur, et
qui grimpe aux arbres, mais on n’en a descrit ni les dents ni les
doigts.” (Reg. Anim. I. 151. note). This eminent zoologist appears
from the above to hold our countryman’s veracity, or at least his
accuracy of observation, and fidelity of description, in the same low
estimation as M. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire; or he would hardly have
talked of the ears of the Fennec being nearly as large as its body[84],
or have asserted that neither the teeth nor toes have been
described. But the illustrious foreigners of whom we have, in no
offensive tone we hope, just spoken, are not the only persons who
have hesitated to place implicit confidence in all that Bruce has given
to the world: his own countrymen have shown at least an equal
disposition to set him down as a dealer in the marvellous. Time,
however, and better experience, are gradually doing the Abyssinian
traveller that justice which his cotemporaries were but too ready to
deny him.
M. Desmarest considers all the characters which Bruce has given
of the Fennec as correct, “not conceiving it possible, that he could
have assumed the far too severe tone he adopted in speaking of
Sparman and Brander, if he had not been perfectly sure of his facts.”
Mr. Griffith has given the figures of two animals, both, as he
conceives, belonging to this genus; one of them came from the Cape
of Good Hope, and is now in the Museum at Paris; it is named by
Cuvier Canis megalotis, and is described by Desmarest in his
Mammalogie, (Ency. Meth. Supp. p. 538): Major Smith has called it
Megalotis Lalandii, to distinguish it from Bruce’s Fennec. The other
animal is from the interior of Nubia, and is preserved in the Museum
at Frankfort. Both the figures are from the accurate and spirited
pencil of Major Hamilton Smith. The first animal is as large as the
common fox, and decidedly different from Bruce’s Fennec; the
second, Major Smith considers to be Bruce’s animal.
In the fifth volume of the Bulletin des Sciences, sect. 2. p. 262., is
an extract from a memoir of M. Leuckart, (Isis, 2 Cahier, 1825), on
the Canis cerdo, or Zerda of naturalists, in which it is stated that M.
M. Temminck and Leuckart saw the animal in the Frankfort Museum,
which had been previously drawn by Major Smith, and recognized it
for the true Zerda; and the former gentleman, in the prospectus of
his Monographies de Mammalogie, announced it as belonging to the
genus Canis, and not to that of Galago. M. Leuckart coincides in
opinion with M. Temminck, and conceives that the genus Megalotis,
or Fennecus, must be suppressed, “the animal very obviously
belonging to the genus Canis, and even to the subgenus Vulpes.” He
adds, “that it most resembles the C. corsac; the number of teeth and
their form are precisely the same as those of the fox, which it also
greatly resembles in its feet, number of toes, and form of tail. The
principal difference between the fox and the Zerda consists in the
great length of the ears of the latter and its very small size.”
The singular controversy, not even yet decided, that has arisen
respecting this little animal, has induced us to preface our
description of the individual before us, by this sketch of its history.

6—6 1—1
Fennecus. Dentium formula.—Dentes primores 6—6, laniarii 1—1
6—6
, molares 7—7?

F. supra rufescenti-albus, subtus pallidior; maculâ suboculari rufâ;

caudæ maculâ sub-basali nigrescenti-brunneâ, apice nigro.
 Dimensions. Inches.
Length of the head from the extremity of the nose to the
occiput, 3⅜
Breadth between the eyes, 0⅞
Length of ears, 3⅛
Breadth of do. at the widest part, 2
Breadth of the cranium between the ears, 1⅝
Length from the occiput to the insertion of the tail, 9½
Tail, 6
[85]Height
before, from the ground to the top of the back,
above the shoulder, 6⅝
[85]Heightbehind, to the top of the back above the loins, 7½
Breadth of the extremity of the nose, 0⁵⁄₁₆
Length of the middle claws of the fore feet, 0⁷⁄₁₆
Exterior do. do. 0½
Middle and exterior claws of the hind feet, 0½
The general colour is white, slightly inclining to straw-yellow;
above, from the occiput to the insertion of the tail it is light rufous
brown, delicately pencilled with fine black lines, from thinly scattered
hairs tipped with black; the exterior of the thighs is lighter rufous
brown; the chin, throat, belly, and interior of the thighs and legs are
white, or cream colour. The nose is pointed, and black at the
extremity; above, it is covered with very short, whitish hair inclining to
rufous, with a small irregular rufous spot on each side beneath the
eyes; the whiskers are black, rather short and scanty; the back of the
head is pale rufous brown. The ears are very large, erect, and
pointed, and covered externally with short, pale, rufous-brown hair;
internally, they are thickly fringed on the margins with long greyish-
white hairs, especially in front; the rest of the ears, internally, is bare;
externally, they are folded or plaited at the base. The tail is very full,
cylindrical, of a rufous-brown colour, and pencilled with fine black
lines like the back; its colour is rather deeper above than on the
under part, and there is a small dark brown spot, at about an inch
below its insertion on the upper side; the ends of the hairs at the
extremity of the tail are black, forming a black tip about three
quarters of an inch long. The anterior feet are pentadactylous, the
posterior tetradactylous, and both are covered to the claws with
moderately long whitish hairs, slightly inclining to straw-yellow; the
claws are of a yellowish-white, or light horn-colour, moderately
hooked, very much compressed, and very sharp; those on the hinder
toes are most compressed, longest, and least arched. The fur is very
soft and fine; that on the back, from the forehead to the insertion of
the tail, as well as that on the upper part of the shoulder before, and
nearly the whole of the hinder thigh, is formed of tri-coloured hairs,
the base of which is of a dark lead colour, the middle white, and the
extremity light rufous brown.
The teeth of our animal are much worn, apparently by age; the
incisors in the upper jaw are nearly even, the second pair rather
broader than the rest; of those in the lower jaw, the outer pair are
considerably the largest.
The imperfect state of the teeth, and the difficulty of examining
them accurately without having the skull detached, forbids us to be
confident as to the number of grinders in either jaw. From the most
careful inspection, however, that we could make in the actual state of
the specimen, we are inclined to believe that the system of dentition
closely, if not exactly, resembles that of the dog. In the present state
of uncertainty, whilst opinions of the highest authority are so
discordant as to the genus to which this animal should be referred,
we do not feel ourselves at liberty to disturb the arrangement
adopted by Lacépède, Illiger, and Desmarest, but leave the ultimate
decision of the question to future naturalists, who may possess more
unequivocal data for its solution. One thing, indeed, is pretty obvious,
namely, that if Major Denham’s animal be not the identical species
described by Bruce, it certainly belongs to the same genus; for as it
does not appear that Bruce himself ever possessed a detached skull
of the Fennec, it is very easy to imagine that he could not accurately
ascertain the number of molar teeth in the head of a living animal of
such vivacity and quickness, and which was so impatient of being
handled, that he could not obtain a correct measurement of its ears,
or even count the number of paps on its belly. With such an animal it
is not unlikely, moreover, that the two last tubercular grinders should
escape the notice of any one attempting to examine the mouth under
circumstances so disadvantageous, those teeth being in some
measure concealed by the large projecting carnivorous tooth
immediately before them. That it cannot be a Galago, as M. Geoffroy
Saint Hilaire imagines, is sufficiently evident; and M. Desmarest has
given no less than six distinct, and, we think, conclusive reasons
against that opinion, through which, however, we must not follow him
at present. The subject has already grown under our hands to a far
greater bulk than we intended, and we conclude it by taking leave to
question the validity of M. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire’s argument
respecting the general veracity of Mr. Bruce, and consequently to
enter our protest against his Fennec being classed with the
Quadrumana.
We retain, provisionally, the generic name of Fennecus, first
proposed by Lacépède, and the specific one of Cerdo, adopted by
Gmelin; but should the animal ultimately prove to be a different
species from Canis cerdo, M. Desmarest’s specific appellation of
Brucii may with propriety be assigned to it.

Genus. Ryzæna. Ill.

Species 2.—Ryzæna tetradactyla.

Viverra tetradactyla. Gmel. I. 85.

Suricate. Buff. xiii. t. 8.
This animal was found on the banks of the rivers in the
neighbourhood of Lake Tchad.

Tribus. Plantigrades. Cuv.

Genus. Gulo. Storr.

Species 3.—Gulo capensis.

 Gulo Capensis. Desm. Mamm. p. 176.
Viverra mellivora. Gmel. I. 91.
Ratel. Sparman.
Ratel weesel. Penn. Quad. II. 66.
The natives, from whom Major Denham had all the following
particulars, informed him, that during the rutting season the Ratel is
very fierce, not hesitating to attack a man. Each male has two or
three females, whom he scarcely suffers to be a moment out of his
sight; if either of them escape his jealous vigilance, and leave him for
a short time, she is sure to receive severe chastisement at her
return. This animal is very easily killed; a single blow on the nose,
which seems peculiarly sensible of the slightest injury, instantly
despatches him.

Ordo. Quadrumanes. Cuv.

Genus. Cercopithecus. Briss.

Species 4.—Cercopithecus ruber.

Cercopithecus ruber. Geoff. Ann. du Mus. xix. 96.

Simia rubra. Gmel. I. 34.
Le Patas. Buff. xiv. pl. 25 and 26.
Red Monkey. Penn. Quad. I. 208.

Ordo. Ruminans. Cuv.

Genus. Camelopardalis. Gmel.

Species 5.—Camelopardalis Giraffa.

Camelopardalis Giraffa. Gmel. I. 181.

Cervus Camelopardalis. Linn. I. 92.
Giraffe. Buff. XIII. p. 1.
Camelopard. Penn. Quad. I. 65.
 The Giraffes were found on the south-eastern side of Lake Tchad,
generally in parties of from two to five or six. They are tolerably
numerous, but not very common. The motion of these animals is not
elegant; their pace is a short canter, in which they seem to drag their
hind legs after them, in an awkward fashion: their speed, however, is
such as to keep a horse at a pretty smart gallop. The skin brought
home by Major Denham is that of a young animal, not above a year
and a half or two years old; the colours are very much lighter than on
the skin of an adult animal. In its wild state, the Giraffe carries its
head remarkably erect; a character which, Major Denham remarks,
is not faithfully preserved in any figure he has seen of this animal.

Genus. Antilope. Pall.

Species 6.—Antilope Senegalensis.

Antilope Senegalensis. Desm. Mamm. p. 457.

Le Koba. Buff. xii. pl. 32. f. 2.
Senegal Antelope. Penn. Quad. I. 103.
Only the head and horns of this animal were brought home by
Major Denham; it was found on the plains of central Africa. The
natives call this species Korrigum.

Species 7—Antilope bezoartica.

Antilope gazella. Gmel. I. 190.

Capra bezoartica. Linn. I. 96.
Algazelle. Buff. xii. pl. 33. f. 1, 2.
Algazel Antelope. Penn. Quad. I. 77.
Linnæus’s description of Capra bezoartica speaks of the horns as
being “entirely annulated;” but Brisson, to whom Linnæus refers,
says they are annulated nearly to the end. In our specimens, a
considerable extent from the apex is without the rings. This
difference may probably arise from age. In other respects, the horns
before us perfectly answer the description of those of Linnæus’s
Capra bezoartica. M. Gmelin seems to have made some confusion
between the Capra Gazella and C. bezoartica of Linnæus. He has
changed the specific name of Gazella into that of oryx, and he has
made Linnæus’s bezoartica the Gazella of himself.
Only two horns of this species, and those apparently not fellows,
were sent home. This animal was found on the south side of the
River Shary, in central Africa.

Species 8.—Antilope cervicapra.

Antilope cervicapra. Pall.

Capra cervicapra. Linn. I. 96.
Antilope. Buff. xii. pl. 35 and 36.
Common Antelope. Penn. Quad. I. 89.
We have only the horns of this animal. Its African name is El
Buger Abiad, or the White Cow.

Genus. Bos. Linn.

Species 9.—Bos taurus.

Bos taurus. Linn. t. I. 98.

Major Denham brought home a pair of horns of enormous size,
belonging evidently, from their form, texture, and mode of insertion,
to a variety of the common Ox, of which he states that two kinds
exist in central Africa, one with a hump before, and very small horns;
the other altogether of a larger size, also with a hump, and immense
horns.
The circumference of one of the horns before us, at the largest
part near the base, is twenty-three inches and a quarter; its length,
following the line of curvature, three feet, six inches and a half. It has
two curves; and weighs six pounds and seven ounces. Internally it is
extremely cellular, or rather cavernous.
 Species 10.—Bos bubalis.

Bos bubalis. Linn. I. 99.

Le Buffle. Buff. xi. pl. 25.
Buffalo. Penn. Quad. I. 28.
We possess the head, with the horns. The name by which the
native Africans call this animal is Zamouse.

Ordo. Pachydermes. Cuv.

Genus. Rhinoceros. Linn.

Species 11.—Rhinoceros bicornis.

Rhinoceros bicornis. Gmel. I. 57.

Rhinoceros unicornis. var. β. bicornis. Linn. I. 104.
Rhinoceros Africanus. Cuv.
Rhinoceros d’Afrique. Buff. Supp. vi. pl. 6.
Two-horned Rhinoceros. Penn. Quad. i. 150. pl. 29.
Here again we have the horns only. The local name of this animal
is Gargatan.

Ordo. Rongeurs. Cuv.

Genus. Sciurus. Linn.

Species 12.—Sciurus Dschinschicus.

Sciurus Dschinschicus. Gmel. I. 151.

Sciurus albovittatus. Desm. Mamm. p. 338.
Our species agrees exactly with M. Desmarest’s account of his S.
albovittatus, except that the tail is rather more decidedly distich than
that of the individual he describes; but the dried state of the skin
before us prevents our ascertaining its form very minutely. M.
Desmarest refers to pl. 89 of Sonnerat’s Voyage, vol. ii. for a figure
of his Ecurieul de Gingi, which he quotes as a variety of this species;
on looking into Sonnerat, we do not find any figure at all of this
animal referred to by that author. Plate 89 is a figure of the Maquis à
Bourres.

Genus. Hystrix. Linn.

Species 13.—Hystrix cristata.

Hystrix cristata. Linn. I. 74.

Porc-épic. Buff. xii. pl. 51.
Crested Porcupine. Penn. Quad.

Classis. Aves. Auct.

Ordo. Raptores. Ill.
Fam. Vulturidæ. Vigors. in Linn. Trans.
Genus. Vultur. Auct.

Species 1.—Vultur fulvus.

Vultur fulvus. Briss. I. 462, sp. 7.

Gyps vulgaris. Sav. Ois. d’Egypte.
Le Percnoptere. Pl. Enl. 426.
Vautour Griffon. Temm. Manuel d’Orn. p. 5.
Alpine Vulture. Var. B. Lath. Gen. Hist. I. p. 17.
This species was observed by Major Denham in the
neighbourhood of all the large towns through which he passed. It
was attracted by the offal, and refuse of every description, which the
inhabitants were accustomed to throw out for its use. For the
services which these birds thus performed, they met with protection
in return from the natives, who did not permit them to be destroyed.
 Fam. Falconidæ. Leach.
Subfam. Accipitrina. V. in Linn. Trans.
Genus. Astur. Auct.

Species 2.—Astur musicus.

Falco musicus. Daud. Orn. II. 116, sp. lxxxviii.

Le Faucon chanteur. Le Vaill. Ois. d’Afr. I. 117, pl. 27.
Chanting Falcon. Lath. Gen. Hist. I. p. 178.
This beautiful Hawk was met with occasionally in most parts of
central Africa, but not in any abundance. It was the only species of
the family which the officers of the expedition were enabled to
preserve and bring home.

Ordo. Insessores. V. in Linn. Trans.

Tribus. Fissirostres. Cuv.
Fam. Todidæ. V. in Linn. Trans.
Genus. Eurystomus. Vieill.

Species 3.—Eurystomus Madagascariensis.

Coracias Madagascariensis. Gmel. I. 379.

Le Rolle de Madagascar. Pl. Enl. 501.
Madagascar Roller. Lath. Gen. Hist. III. p. 79.

Fam. Halcyonidæ. V. in Linn. Trans.

Genus. Halcyon. Swains.

Species 4.—Halcyon erythrogaster.

 Alcedo erythrogaster. Temm.
Alcedo Senegalensis, var. γ. Lath. Ind. Orn. 249.
Martin Pecheur du Senegal. Pl. Enl. 356, fig. inf.
The birds of this species were met with in abundance in those
situations near rivers which form the usual resort of the species of
this family. They were more particularly observed in the tamarind
trees.

Tribus. Conirostres. Cuv

Fam. Corvidæ. Leach.
Genus. Coracias. Linn.

Species 5.—Coracias Senegalensis.

Coracias Senegalensis. Gmel. I. 379.

Rollier du Senegal. Pl. Enl. 326.
Swallow-tailed Indian Roller. Edw. t. 327.
Senegal Roller. Lath. Gen. Hist. III. p. 75.
These splendid Rollers were very abundant in the thick
underwoods throughout central Africa.

Tribus. Scansores. Auct.

Fam. Psittacidæ. Leach.
Genus. Psittacus. Auct.

Species 6.—Psittacus erythacus.

Psittacus erythacus. Linn. i. 144.

Perroquet cendrée de Guinée. Pl. Enl. 311.
Ash-coloured Parrot. Alb. i. t. 12.
Several specimens of this species were brought over alive to this
country, which are now honoured with a place in His Majesty’s
collection.

Genus. Palæornis. V. in Zool. Journ.

Species 7—Palæornis torquatus.

Palæornis torquatus. V. in Zool. Journ. vol. II. p. 50.

Psittaca torquata. Briss. IV. 323.
La perruche à collier. Pl. Enl. 551.
Perruche à collier rose. Le Vaill. Hist. des Perr. pl. 22, 23.
This species, whose chief habitat is said to be in India, which is
the main resort of the group to which it belongs, appears to have a
very wide geographical distribution. It has been found on the coast of
Senegal, as well as by the officers of the present expedition in
central Africa. The specimen before us is very much mutilated, but
enough of the bird remains to enable us to identify the species.

Ordo. Rasores. Ill.

Fam. Tetraonidæ. Leach.
Genus. Pterocles. Temm.

Species 8.—Pterocles exustus.

Pterocles exustus. Temm. Pl. Col. ♂ 354. ♀ 360.

These birds were found in great numbers in the neighbourhood of
Bornou. They frequented the low sand hills which were scantily
covered with shrubs. Like most of the family, they were found to be
excellent eating.

Genus. Francolinus. Steph.

Species 9.—Francolinus Clappertoni.

 Franc. supra brunneus fulvo-variegatus; subtus fulvo-albidus,
maculis longitudinalibus brunneis aspersus; strigâ superciliari
subocularique, gulâ, genisque albis, his brunneo-lineatis.
Pileus brunneus, ad frontem nigrescens. Striga nigra interrupta
extendit a rictu ad genas. Genarum plumæ, anteriores lineis
gracilibus, posteriores maculis ovalibus brunneis in medio notatæ.
Colli, pectoris, abdominisque plumæ in medio brunneæ marginibus
fulvo-albidis, rhachibus pallidis. Dorsi superioris, scapularium,
tectricumque plumæ pallido-fulvo marginatæ partimque fasciatæ.
Dorsi inferioris uropygiique plumæ pallidè brunneæ in medio fusco-
brunneo leviter notatæ. Remiges exteriores pogonio externo ad
basin fulvo-fasciato, pogonio interno ad basin brunneo, versus
apicem rufo-fulvo; interiores utrinque fulvo-fasciatæ. Ptila inferiora in
medio brunnea, fulvo ad margines notata. Pteromata inferiora in
medio fusca, marginibus fulvis. Femorum plumæ fulvæ in medio
brunneæ. Rectrices brunneæ fasciis plurimis fulvis undulatæ.
Rostrum superné nigrum, infra ad basin rubro tinctum. Pedes, ad
frontem nigri, poné rubescentes: tarsis bicalcaratis, calcare superiore
obtuso, inferiore acuto. Longitudo corporis, 14 unc.; alæ a carpo ad
remigem 5tam, 7⅕; caudæ, 3⅘; rostri, 1¹⁄₂₈; tarsi, 2³⁄₁₀.
This species of Francolin, which appears to us to be hitherto
undescribed, was met with in tolerable abundance. It frequented
sand hills, covered with low shrubs; and was very difficult to be
procured in consequence of the great speed with which it ran. We
have named the species after Captain Clapperton, R. N. the intrepid
and intelligent companion of Major Denham.

Fam. Struthionidæ. V. in Linn. Trans.

Genus. Struthio. Auct.

Species 10.—Struthio camelus.

 Struthio camelus. Linn. I. 265.
L’Autruche. Pl. Enl. 457. ♀
The Black Ostrich. Brown’s Illust. of Zool. pl. 16.
Major Denham succeeded in bringing alive to this country four of
these noble birds, which are at present in His Majesty’s menagerie at
Windsor.

Genus. Otis. Linn.

Species 11.—Otis Denhami.

O. fusco-brunneo et pallido-fulvo undulatim punctulata, capite
brunnescenti-nigro, superciliis genis gulâque albidis, collo rufo,
pectore cinereo; pteromatibus remigibus rectricibusque nigris, istis
albo-maculatis, his albo-fasciatis; corpore subtus rufescenti-albo.
Capitis pileus parsque superior nuchæ brunnescenti-nigri.
Regionis auricularis plumæ elongatæ, decompositæ, cinerascenti-
albæ. Colli inferioris plumæ frontales elongatæ. Dorsi, uropygii,
scapularium, ptilorumque plumæ fusco-brunneæ, pallido-fusco
undulatim punctulatæ. Pteromata nigra maculis albis grandibus
irregulariter notata. Tectrices inferiores albæ ad marginem alarum
fusco-variegatæ. Rectrices nigræ; duæ exteriores pogonio interno
fasciis duabus albis, externo tribus, notatæ; cæteræ tribus fasciis
ejusdem coloris utrinque notatæ, fasciâ sub-apicali nigro sparsâ:
duæ mediæ ad apicem fusco-brunneæ, pallido-fusco undulatim
punctulatæ. Irides flavæ. Rostrum corneum. Pedes nigri. Longitudo
corporis, 3 ped. 9 unc.; caudæ, 1 pes, 4 unc.; rostri, ad frontem, 3¾
unc., ad rictum, 4½ unc.; tarsi, 7 unc.; digiti medii, ungue incluso, 2¾
unc.; exterioris, 1⁷⁄₀ unc.

African Bustard? Lath. Gen. Hist. Vol. VIII. p. 361.

We have hitherto seen no description that exactly accords with
the bird before us. The African Bustard described by Dr. Latham, in
the second edition of his “Synopsis,” lately published under the title
of “A General History of Birds,” appears to be the most allied to it.
But the head of that bird is described as being bare; and such a
marked difference prevents us from referring our bird to that species,
with which it generally agrees in other points, without some note of
doubt. Our specimen is unfortunately very defective: in the quill
feathers, and fore parts of the neck, more particularly. These latter
are described by Major Denham as singularly beautiful, being
elongated and swelling out into a kind of ruff. We are happy to have
the opportunity of distinguishing this bird by the name of the
enterprising traveller to whose zeal we are indebted for the species
itself, and many other valuable acquisitions to science.
This species was met with, in the rainy season, near the larger
towns, but not in any great abundance. It frequented moist places,
where the herbage was pure and fresh. In such places it was taken
in snares by the natives, who used it for food. It was almost
invariably met with singly, Major Denham never having observed a
pair together more than once. It is singular, also, that it was always
found in company with Gazelles whenever a Bustard was observed,
it was certain that the Gazelles were not far distant. Major Denham
describes the eye of this bird as large and brilliant. In like manner as
is recorded of the Gazelle, with which this bird seems to have so
close a sympathy, the Arabs are accustomed to compare the eyes of
their most beautiful women to those of the Oubara[86].

Ordo. Grallatores. Ill.

Fam. Gruidæ. V. in Linn. Trans.
Genus. Balearica. Briss.

Species 12. Balearica pavonina.

 Ardea pavonina. Linn. I. 233.
Balearica. Briss. v. 511.
Oiseau royal. ♀ Id. Ib. pl. 41.
L’oiseau royal. ♂ Pl. Enl. 265.
Crowned African Crane. Edw. t. 192.
Crowned Heron. Lath. Gen. Hist. IX. p. 26.
These birds were found in the neighbourhood of the smaller lakes.
They were generally observed in flocks of six or eight. A single pair
was sometimes met with, but a single bird scarcely ever.

Genus. Platalea. Linn.

Species 13.—Platalea leucorodia.

Platalea leucorodia. Linn. I. 231.

La Spatule. Pl. Enl. 405.
Spatule blanche. Temm. Manuel d’Orn. p. 595.
White Spoonbill. Penn. Brit. Zool. App. t. 9.
These birds were found in the smaller lakes, and in grounds which
were overflowed. They were met with in tolerable plenty.

Fam. Ardeidæ. Leach.

Genus. Ardea. Auct.

Species 14.—Ardea Coromandelensis.

Ardea Coromandelensis. Steph, in Sharts Gen. Zool. XI. p. 577.

Ardea russata. Temm. Manuel d’Orn. p. 506.
Ardea affinis? Horsf. Linn. Trans. Vol. XIII. p. 189.
Ardea comata. var. β. Lath. Ind. Orn. 687.
Crabier de la côté de Coromandel. Pl. Enl. 910.
 This bird was shot in the neighbourhood of Alph, a town situated
in the middle of a swamp, described at page 233 of these travels.
They were seen in some abundance in that neighbourhood, and
were noticed by Major Denham as remarkable for their beauty and
gracefulness.

Species 15.—Ardea melanocephala.

Ard. cinerea; capite cristato, colli parte posteriore lateribusque,
regione interhumerali, remigibus, rectricibusque nigris, gulâ collique
parte anteriore albis.
Colli inferioris plumæ elongatæ cinerascentes. Dorsi pars anterior
inter humeros nigra, posterior saturatè cinerea. Ptila pallidè cinerea.
Tectrices inferiores albæ. Rostrum nigrum, mandibulâ inferiore
flavescente, apicem versus nigro marginatâ. Pedes nigri. Longitudo
corporis, 2 ped. 9 unc.; alæ, 15 unc.; rostri, 4; tarsi, 6.
We feel much hesitation in characterizing the bird before us as a
distinct species. In a family like the present, where there is so much
variation both in age and sex in the same species, it is almost
impossible to decide upon the identity or distinction of species,
unless by actual observation of the birds themselves in their native
haunts, and in their different ages and states of plumage. On the
whole, however, it is perhaps the most eligible plan to keep those
species separate which show evident marks of distinction; leaving it
to more accurate observation to ascertain whether they may be
identical with described species, and differing merely by age, sex, or
the variations of plumage according to the different seasons of the
year.
The bird before us might, at first sight, be supposed to be the
common Ardea cinerea, Linn. But that bird, as far as we have
observed, never possesses the entirely black head which
distinguishes the specimen before us; nor has it the black on the
hind part of the neck, nor on the back between the shoulders. The
younger bird of our common species has those parts cinereous
which are black in the adult: and the crest and lower feathers of the
neck are never so much elongated as in the old bird. The strength of
the black markings in Major Denham’s species, moreover, and the
developement of the crest, neck, and scapular feathers, prevent us
from concluding it to be an immature bird. If we allow it to be adult, it
is decidedly distinct from the adult of A. cinerea. We know no other
allied species to which we might consider it referable.
These birds were found in great abundance in all the lakes and
marshes throughout the route of our travellers. They were met with
in company with numberless other species of the family, specimens
of which our officers were prevented from preserving, or bringing
home, in consequence of the difficulties attending the expedition, to
which we have before alluded.

Genus. Scopus. Briss.

Species 16.—Scopus umbretta.

Scopus umbretta. Gmel. I. 618.

L’Ombrette du Senegal. Pl. Enl. 796.
The Umbre. Brown’s Illust. of Zool. pl. 35.
Tufted Umbre. Lath. Gen. Hist. Vol. IX. p. 23.
Major Denham informs us, that this bird was very rarely seen. The
few he observed were met with in the Mimosa trees.

Genus. Ibis. Lacep.

Species 17—Ibis Æthiopicus.

Tantalus Æthiopicus. Lath. Ind. Orn. 706.

Ibis religiosa. Cuv. Regne Anim. I. 483.
Abou Hannez. Bruce’s Trav. Append. pl. p. 172.
This bird, which is of exceeding interest as being one of the two
species of Ibis which were the objects of sacred worship among the
Egyptians, was met with by Major Denham on the west borders of