8i 



** treatment"), and having all the appearance of this 

 familiar bird as it sails in flight. 



No. 673 is an example of what one so often sees 

 in such pictures as contain birds. Carefully drawn 

 flowers or foliage and accessories, and a wretchedly 

 drawn bird. Doubtless this bird was drawn from the 

 remains of a Bee-Eater. What, I wonder, would be 

 thought by an aviarist, whose bird, probably the gem 

 of his collection, as far as rarity went, presented such 

 an appearance? 



A picture on which much time has been spent is 

 No. 781, " Magpies" by Catherine H. Greig. There is 

 no ** mass " or grouping in the picture ; it is an 

 intricate study of bare branches and three Magpies. 

 The birds are carefully drawn, but from what ? My 

 own conclusion is — from stuffed specimens, for I 

 never saw living Magpies like them, and hope I never 

 may. Justice is not done in this case to the metallic 

 lustre, the colour being poor. 



The Ravens in No. 847, by J. C. Dollman, 

 ** Famine," are good in sheen and lustre, but weak in 

 drawing. 



All the foregoing are oil paintings, and in the 

 Water Colour Room will be found other pictures of 

 birds. The Peacock in Harry Dixon's " Orpheus " 

 (No. 912) is very poor— not what might be expected 

 from an animal painter. 



A picture of Grouse by Henry Stannard (No. 

 946) "A Hielan Clan " is a carefully drawn moorland 

 scene with some very weak Grouse in it. If the 

 Grouse are like this in life, I don't wonder that they 

 get disease. Tiie colour is not bad, though I cannot 

 say that it is actually good. However, we may be 

 glad the accessories are well studied, as that does not 

 generally occur in the work of the natural history 

 " artists." 



