219 



I ain afraid I cannot however snbscribe to the theory that 

 these wattles owe their existence, or rather survival, to their 

 being a guide to the parents in feeding. Were that the case 

 there would by now be no birds extant, which, occupying dark 

 nests, did not exhibit analogous guides, whereas we all know 

 there are hundreds of such species. With regard to the 

 protection against snakes theory I offer no opinion either way, 

 because I have not sufficient facts before me to warrant my 

 doing so. 



Another point of great interest to me in Capt. Perreau's 

 valuable paper is the fact that his Gouldians came to no harm 

 during their prolonged exposure to a degree of cold, which is 

 described not as merely cold for India, but as cold for any- 

 where. It so fully bears out what I say on this question in 

 "The Hygiene of Bird Keeping." 



THE WILD CANARY:— While no one seems to have 

 noticed the error I was led into by Dr. Sharpe over the 

 Gouldians, a gentleman " who does not wish his name to 

 appear," but who can be easily identified from the internal 

 evidence afforded by his letter, has been " curious enough 

 to examine the historical evidence" given by me in my 

 recent article in this Magazine on the Wild Canary. The 

 results of his research are considered to be of sufficient 

 value to occupy two pages (all but four lines) of brevier 

 type in an esteemed contemporary, to the exclusion of an 

 important letter on Avian Tuberculosis and even of their own 

 Post Mortem Reports. The gist of his communication is 

 that I was guilty of some errors as to the precise dates of 

 publication of certain i6tli century books which I cited, that I 

 did not take into account the descriptions given therein of the 

 European Siskin, (and worse than all) that two of the Authors' 

 names were incorrectly spelt, and that of one of these books I 

 gave only the short title. I admit the gravity of \\\y offence 

 and tender my humble apologies to my readers. With regard 

 to the matter of the Siskin and the misspelling I can offer no 

 excuse, except perhaps that if even I had seen the books 

 I should have probably thought the Siskin had nothing to 

 do with the Canary. With regard to the dates— I own that I 

 was too idle to emulate the gentleman (who does not wish his 

 name to appear) in his industrious acquirement of useful 

 knowledge in the British IMuseum, and that to my everlasting 

 shame I took the reprehensible short cut of consulting 

 Professor Newton's " Dictionary of Birds," and other 

 apparently respectable authorities on my own shelves. 



