1 66 The Field Naturalist's Quarterly Aug. 



tion in our own country, now that the Society for the 

 Protection of Birds has suggested an Arbor Day in con- 

 nection with the encouragement and protection of birds. 



The question with which we purpose to deal in this paper 

 is not the afforesting of the six milHon acres in the United 

 Kingdom, which could be redeemed from the condition of 

 being waste lands and made to pay 2i per cent, but the 

 much smaller and simpler question of planting trees in 

 suitable places by an organised effort on a particular day 

 in each year. In fact it is not forestry, or even sylviculture, 

 but arboriculture, which is in question. 



The objects of forestry are to put waste lands to effective 

 use and to produce timber that will be financially profitable, 

 and only in a secondary degree to beautify the country and 

 modify its fauna or its climate. In fact, forests grown on 

 sound economical principles are by no means so picturesque 

 and ornamental as neglected woodlands and parks full of 

 gnarled oaks, hollow pollards, and immemorial elms. 



At first sight it seems a most taking idea to set apart a 

 day for planting trees to beautify the landscape and en- 

 courage birds to multiply in the land. But the most 

 superficial study of the question suggests many practical 

 difficulties at the very outset. Who, for instance, is going 

 to give the necessary land for planting ? Where is the 

 money for the trees, which in the aggregate would amount 

 to a considerable sum, to come from ? Who is to decide the 

 species of tree to be planted in each case ? Private enter- 

 prise cannot be expected to find the land and present the 

 trees as a permanent gift. Desultory and partial tree-plant- 

 ing would not be of the smallest use, and would merely bring 

 the whole movement into contempt and premature decay. 



The Bird Protection Acts, though brought out under the 

 aegis of Parliament and made a national concern, are full 

 of absurdities. They are framed and worked on radically 

 wrong and inefficient principles. Birds such as the king- 

 fisher are not sufficiently protected; birds such as jackdaws, 

 crows, rooks, and magpies are accorded a protection to 

 which they have no claim. Moreover, the Acts, such as 

 they are, are seldom enforced, and then not against the 

 chief offenders or with sufficient penalties. 



