LI 



on May 19 of that year a letter, in wliieli he warmly thanks nie, and expresses his iiigh 

 admiration for my ornitliopiiaenological endeavours. 



In the same year Oct. 27, lie gave his consent to my making use of his article on 

 Naumann published in „Nature". 



The letters of Feb. 17, and Mar. 24, 1906, relate to Extracts from the Scotch „Report 

 of the Meteorology of Scotland, Edinburgh 1856 — 1880", and from the „Journal of the 

 Scottisli Meteorological Society, Edinburgh 1863 — 1862", provided for the Hungarian Orni- 

 tholoijical Bureau, which were very difficult to procure, and bear witness to his great will- 

 ingness. 



His letter of Ap. 7, 1906, is the reply to my request, that he should work upon col- 

 lecting and publisiiing English ornithologists to put dates to their observations, through which 

 their statements might have also an ornitiiophiienological value. A misunderstanding appears 

 to have arisen here, which may have been due to want of precision in my letter. Prof. 

 Newton took my expressions as if I meant the faunists to make ornithophaenological obser- 

 vations, which was far from my intention, as may be seen too from my letter, and from tlie 

 example quoted from Prof. Wmtakek's work. Prof. Newton's letter is, iiowever, valuable because 

 he thorougidy explains his conception of ornitliopiiaenological observations. Still, the great 

 latitude he admits in respect of timing, shows that he was after all rather an oruitho- 

 geographer than an ornithophaenologist. 



But the gem of the little collection is the correspondence on the chapter .Bird pro- 

 tection", which was occasioned by my „History of the International Convention for the 

 Protection of Bird of Paris, 1902." 



Prof. Newton claims for himself priority in England for raising the subject of Bird 

 Protection, from the year 1868 — 9, when he gave a lecture at the meeting of the 

 „British Association for the Advancement of Science" ; in which he is perfectly in the 

 right. But in my work I gave no occasion for the bringing forward of this claim, for I began 

 my treatise with the law of 1880, whose title runs „The Wild Birds Protection Act 1880," 

 and clearly explained that this Act now in force is an adjunct of the older law (upon which 

 Prof. Newton may have had influence); to give my words: „The Act at present in force 

 is really an amendment of tlie older laws ; it was passed on Sept. 7, 1880, its short title 

 being „The Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880". In my book I did not touch at all upon 

 the question of priority, and could not enter upon a treatment of the development (of Bird 

 protection) in England, altogether special. 



It seems that Prof. Newton was influenced here by the circumstance that 1 took up 

 tiie historical threads of the „International Assembly of Fanning and Forestry of 1873", 

 whereas his for England dated from 1868 — 9 ; but for the public this latter suggestion has 

 no priority, for this is due to Eduard Baldamus from 1845, (see pp. 33, 38, 168 of my book). 



The views of Prof. Newton upon Bird protection itself are extremely interesting. 



In this connection he is entirely the scholarly naturalist without a trace of sentimen- 

 tality, and absolutely insular, therefore a Briton from the top of his head to the tip of his 

 toe. He desires the preservation of all kinds of birds in the Island kingdom, and rejects 

 the notions of Usefulness and Harmfulness, because in his opinion they are not susceptible 

 of proof. In discussing these Prof. Newton goes to the verge of excitement. It is remarkable 

 that he attaches no weight to the protection of nests and eggs. He does not appear to 

 recognise any International interests at all. He goes in for the preservation even of birds 

 of prey in England, and regards only the interests of the territory of the United Kingdom, 

 and of the faunists. 



The great spectacle of bird migration does not touch him, altough it is of significance, 

 because the birds of England as well are divided into stationary and migratory, the latter 

 of which undertake twice a year the long journey between England and the Tropics ; 



VII- 



