Anatomy, or morphology, is one of the oldest biological disciplines. Until about two centuries ago, biology was actually synonymous with morphology. This fact has contributed to a widespread myth in some sections of modern biology that all that can be known about the macrostructure of organisms has already been elucidated by now. This myth, of course, is not rooted in facts: Biologists who want to engage in functional studies, such as the behaviour of organisms or the physiology of organs, more often than not discover that they cannot find any information on the structure or anatomy of the relevant organs or body parts. And many, seemingly well-studied organs turn out to have been incorrectly, insufficiently, or incompletely described (Homberger, D.G. 1988. American Zoologist, 28 (1): 217-229). Moreover, non-morphologists seem often unaware that morphology as a discipline has continued to develop, like all biological disciplines, and is continuously incorporating innumerable theoretical, methodological and technical innovations in its approach. This very diversity of approaches to morphology makes it sometimes difficult to delineate the discipline clearly, even though contemporary morphology develops around well-defined major concepts (Dullemeijer, P. & Zweers, G.A. 1997. Eur J Morphol 35: 354-364.). Contemporary morphology encompasses descriptive, functional, ecological, evolutionary and developmental perspectives. Or, in other words, descriptive morphology raises and answers the question ‘How is a structure constructed?’, functional morphology the question ‘How does a structure work?’, ecological morphology the question ‘What biological role does a structure serve?’, evolutionary morphology the question ‘How and why has the structure evolutionarily changed over time?’, and developmental morphology the question ‘How does the structure develop embryonically?’. The construction of mathematical or physical models, the application of contemporary methods borrowed from molecular biology (e.g., to identify various muscle fibres) or physiology (e.g., electromyography, x-ray cinematography), and many other techniques are used to analyse the anatomical, physiological, behavioural and ecological data and observations.

Avian morphology as a subdiscipline of morphology faces an additional challenge, because it has long been recognised that birds represent a side branch off the vertebrate stem leading towards mammals and human beings. And yet, avian morphology has contributed to the development of biology in substantial and crucial ways (see, e.g., Cole, F.J. 1975. New York; Dover Publications Inc.: 524 pp. (Reprinted from Macmillan Press, London, 1943; Nyhart, L.K. 1995. Chicago; University of Chicago Press: 414 pp.), and it remains a vibrant, albeit small, branch of biology to this day. The reasons for this historical resilience are the same as those that allow the prediction that avian morphology will continue to play an important role in modern biology. The first reason is that anatomy is the only biological discipline that uses the structural aspects of life as the basis for its investigations. As all the expressions of life in organisms are tied to material entities, any functional aspects of biology must, at least eventually, be seen in terms of the underlying structures for a complete analysis (see also Bock, W.J. & von Wahlert, G. 1965. Evolution 19: 269-299). The second reason is that birds have evolved in convergence to mammals in so many aspects that they provide excellent model organisms to be compared to mammals in natural experiments to understand the function and evolution of mammalian structures and conditions (see also Homberger, D.G. in press. Theory in Bioscience). The third reason is that birds provide model systems in their own right to study mechanistic, behavioural, ecological and evolutionary questions, and birds are inherently interesting organisms that will continue to attract morphologists and biologists.

No discipline of science, however classic it may be, can ever be considered completed and, therefore, not needed any longer. Classic disciplines form the basis on which younger disciplines are built, and as the latter acquire new insights and make new observations, these need to be integrated with the observations and theories of the more classic approaches to science (see also Mayr, E. 1997. Cambridge, Massachusetts; Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: 318 pp; Homberger, D.G. 1998. Auk 115 (4): 1085-1088; Vogel. S. 1998. American Scientist 86: 504-506). Furthermore, all biological disciplines remain endless frontiers, as each solution opens up new questions, and as emerging techniques allow the tackling of old, unsolved questions.