64 Prof. Blasius on the Ornithology of Heligoland, 



numerous specimens before they could be obtained through the 

 trade. Finally, and in order to refute with a single word the 

 last argument put forward to demonstrate this pretended swindle, 

 I can inform his opponents that, so far from selling his rare 

 birds, it was only in condescension to particular applications that 

 Gaetke parted with a few scarce specimens, of which he possessed 

 many, and this before they could be obtained from the dealers. 

 All the more striking rarities are still to be seen only in his 

 collection. 



With regard to the bird-trade in Heligoland, there are but 

 few inhabitants who are engaged in it. They kill and prepare 

 the birds in autumn, winter, and spring, for the purpose of sell- 

 ing them in summer to the visitors of this watering-place. In 

 their stock they often have things which would be considex'ed 

 as great rarities on the continent ; but the prices are so low 

 that no dealer in Germany, no ornithologist in the world, would 

 part with tliem for such a trifle, if he were once possessed of 

 them. I can the more confidently affirm this, as I had myself 

 an opportunity of buying many rare birds, and am perfectly well 

 acquainted with the prices of these articles asked by ornitholo- 

 gical dealers. The highest prices in Heligoland are asked for 

 the great Mews, Larus marinus, L. fuscus, and L. argentatus, but 

 it is only for the reason that they are in great request amongst 

 the visitors. Once more I say, the accusation of trickery or 

 falsification is altogether out of the question : the trade in birds 

 is an honest one, producing a casual and moderate profit to the 

 inhabitants. 



But I have said quite enough, or, rather, too much, about the 

 suspicion so publicly raised ; in answer to which I felt it my 

 duty not to keep silence, but to explain how matters really stand. 

 Not in order to save Gaetke's honour or the reputation of the 

 Heligolanders. That is a private affair; and besides it would 

 be supei'fluous to do this, as von Homeyer has not produced 

 a single authenticated fact in support of the alleged trickery. 

 Neither do I intend to blame von Homeyer's suspicions, which 

 seem to me to have been incidentally raised by the discussion on 

 moulting and colouring, in which he differed from Gaetke. All 

 I desired was to remove the evil consequences of his assertions 



