356 The Field Naturalist s Quarterly November 



F.N. Q. which he distinctly placed on a par with other articles referred 

 to. In our opinion that criticism was not justified, and we regard the 

 article in question as an extremely able contribution to local ornithology. 

 —Ed. F. N. Q.] 



Rutland Birds. — " I trust you will permit me a reply to Mr. \V. 

 GyngelPs comments on my article respecting the birds of this county. 

 As far as I can follow his somewhat incoherent paragraphs, he sneers at 

 the style and impugns the accuracy of my remarks. No one can 

 answer a sneer, and style is a matter of literary taste. This is shown by 

 those astonishing persons who believe that the plays of Shakespeare 

 were by the same hand as the works of Bacon — a conclusion truly 

 ' insupportable] to use the remarkable phraseology of our critic. 



" With respect to the accuracy of what I have written, I can only 

 affirm the truth of my statements, which are based on personal observa- 

 tion and investigation during twelve years. Goldfinches were scarce 

 here twelve years ago, but have become more common. Mr. Gyngell's 

 sarcastic reference to goldfinches in the good old times, as it happens, 

 admits of an answer. Cobbett, in his Rural Rides (ii. 133), says : 

 ' Between Somerford and Ocksey I saw on the side of the road more 

 goldfinches than I had ever seen together ; I think fifty times as many 

 as I had ever seen at one time in my life. . . . The goldfinches were 

 here in flocks and ... I do believe I had at last a flock of ten thousand 

 flying before me.' Who nowadays ever sees a flock of even two 

 hundred ? 



" A common bird like the linnet has, of course, nothing to fear from 

 the scientific egg-collector and bird shooter. Were it only as rare a 

 bird as the Dartford warbler, the ornithologist who loves British birds 

 in cases and their eggs in cabinets would swoop down on its few 

 remaining habitats, and bribe the local gamekeeper and poacher to 

 exterminate the race. See the evidence of W. H. Hudson on this 

 point. 



" The Corvida? in this district are much too numerous, as every lover 

 of birds here knows. This is what a clergyman in the neighbourhood 

 writes to me under date 23rd July 1903 : ' I have been reading your 

 notes on the birds of Rutland, and I feel I must thank you for an effort 

 to help in protecting our birds. The methods advocated by many 

 persons also induce me to try and instruct them, from my own observa- 

 tion, how very wrong they frequently are. ... I read in the Daily Mail 

 an article on the decline in numbers of our rare birds, and I was 

 astonished to find the main reason given was the destruction of birds of 

 prey, the magpie being specially grieved over. . . . Magpies are the 

 ruthless destroyers of our rare small birds. They take them from the 

 nests just before the feathers begin to come. . . . I had a partridge's nest 

 in some ground ivy near our front door — 16 eggs ; 15 hatched, and the 

 bird took them off up the field at the back. Immediately a crowd of 

 magpies collected round the wretched brood, and I have seen no 

 partridge chicks since. . . . Only one nest has escaped in my garden 



