This struck me most forcibly with regard to that of Madrid, which I visited some years ago. The vertebrate specimens were old and wretchedly mounted, the lepidoptera nowhere; but the recently acquired animals were splendidly rendered. The youthful and painstaking amateur will, no doubt, however, do as I did when a boy — viz., pitch upon some professional taxidermist, to whose window he will repair at all available opportunities to learn his style, now and then venturing on some small purchase (usually a pair of eyes), to gain admittance to the glories within, and have speech with the great man himself. Exploring in this manner, I have had occasion to thank many of the leading London taxidermists for little "tips" ungrudgingly given.
A few hints may suffice to help the reader. The most important canon is: Do not mix your orders of birds; that is to say, abstain from surrounding a hawk tearing its prey, with various birds in all attitudes, placidly ignoring the existence of their enemy. A scene of this kind irresistibly reminds me of the stage "aside," when the villain of the piece audibly proclaims vengeance against the unconscious hero but two yards away on his right or left.
Birds not of the same kind, and from different parts of the world, are often cased together, but this is open to criticism, unless you avowedly wish to illustrate the whole order for purposes of reference, as in the instance of, say, the Columbae (pigeons). Pairs of birds are the most effective, if the idea of the surroundings is nicely carried out.
I have seen one or two very funny effects in the "Black Country." In one example, a scarlet ibis, mounted in a case on a broken piece of highly gorgeous china gaselier; in another, two puppies facing each other on velvet, a piece of rock salt in the middle, on which stood a lapwing, surrounded by foreign birds in all attitudes. Need I warn the reader against such flights of fancy and works of art?
It is, I would remark, quite impossible to give directions as to attitudes, but on one point I might advise, in order to save the many inquiries addressed to me, from time to time, upon the subject of the straightness or otherwise of gulls' legs. The fact is — gulls, when standing, tuck the tibia quite close to the abdomen, apparently under the wing, and reveal only a very little portion of the tibio-tarsal joint, keeping the metatarse perfectly straight, or, as someone wrote to me once, "like two arrows or sticks." (For explanation of these parts named, see Plate II., (N, q, P.))
Although most works on taxidermy profess to give descriptions of the attitudes of animals, I cannot do so for the simple reason that I consider the acquirement a speciality and purely a matter of experience. Nature must be closely studied; failing this, reference must be made to illustrated works on natural history. All of Gould's works are grand guides to attitudes of specimens and accessories, as also that beautiful work of my friend H. E. Dresser, F.L.S., etc.., on the "Birds of Europe;" but as the price of these magnificent works places them beyond the reach of any but rich people, the amateur may fall back on Morris's "British Birds" and Bree's "Birds of Europe" for coloured plates, and Routledge's "Wood's Natural History" for uncoloured plates of many mammals, birds, and fishes; those signed by Coleman being especially artistic and natural. Add to these Cassell's new "Natural History," edited by Dr. Duncan, F.R.S. — really the best book on popular natural history we have.
Other works, perhaps not so easily accessible, are the "Proceedings of the Zoological Society," and the "Ibis," for coloured illustrations of animals — often in characteristic attitudes, and which, with the above-named works, fitly replace the more ancient "pictures" of animals, arranged on the "fore and aft" system, and from which instead of nature, our taxidermists took their original ideas; indeed, the English school, with true British insularity, would, I presume, have continued the mounting of animals by this "fore and aft" method,* had not the Germans and French broken rudely in on our slumbering taxidermists at the Great Exhibition of 1851. [Footnote: Is it not singular that even now anything stiff, inartistic, "solidly" (i.e. clumsily) made, or behind the age, is cherished with the utmost veneration, as being a proof of the solidity of our "Old English Methods" (and skulls)!]
I propose now to give a few hints on groups, etc.., not describing their management, but merely giving a list of subjects. First, let me say that in order of merit, in all arts connected with the preservation of natural history objects, I must, after many years study, give the palm to the Germans, not only in all matters connected with artistic taxidermy, but in their elegant and truthful setting of beetles, their sensible setting of lepidoptera, and their really beautiful method of making skins of birds etc..
Next come the French, then the English, and lastly, the Americans. The Americans are the worst simply because they adopt the crudest English methods of taxidermy, with other bad habits of ours. I may say that I never saw an artistic piece of work, nor a well made skin, coming from America, unless done by a German or a Frenchman. I believe, however, the European element is working wonders amongst them, and reading Mr. Batty's book (if he be a true American), I was very favourably impressed with the signs of progress contained therein, and I should not at all wonder if soon our American friends "go ahead" and quickly leave us behind.
Professor Henry a. Ward, of Rochester, New York, U.S.A., in a well-written article in one of his "Bulletins" sent to me, has, since I wrote the above, confessed the great superiority of European over American taxidermists, but says that within the last few (very few) years, their native taxidermists have greatly improved, owing to the importation of clever foreign artists, who are gradually educating the American workmen.