^°'i9?3^"- CHISIIOI.M. Prh-atc CoUcchmi 313 



private slaughter is on shifting sand as a i)ubhc i)rotectionist. 

 His logic is had; but even if it were good it would still be un- 

 con\incing to those whom science and scientists exist to serve, 

 viz., the great mass of the people. 



It remains to be added, on this i)()int, that I agree with Mr. 

 Ashby regarding the fre(iuent usefulness of bird skins in lec- 

 turing work. Where we differ is on the c|uestion of the owner- 

 ship of tho.se skins. He claims that the idea that a collection 

 reaches its highest use when placed in a museum is largely falla- 

 cious. In plain language, Mr. Ashby thinks our museums are 

 not doing their jobs. Is it not, then, his duty to start a corrective 

 movement, rather than to encourage numerous little "shows" in 

 opposition to public institutions? Whether mu.seums are as educa- 

 tive as they might be is a broad subject. It is fair to sa\- here. 

 however, that no difficulty is experienced, by recognised lecturers, 

 in securing skins on loan from the (Queensland Museum ; and it 

 is equally fair to assume that facilities of the kind are just as 

 readily obtainable in other States. WxxX. in all such borrowings 

 it should be made clear that the skins are from national collec- 

 tions. I do so because, for one thing, I know .something of the 

 disrepute in which private collectors of bird skin.s — ^gg collecting 

 is less serious — are held by hosts of commonsense people. It is 

 Mr. Ashby's misfortune that he does not know this. If he did 

 his feelings would be grievously lacerated. 



Having shown that the private collector can be no real sup- 

 port, and may even be a menace, to national conservation of 

 birds, there remains to be combated Mr. Ashby's surprising asser- 

 tion that the "acc|uisitive quality" of the collector is a neces- 

 sary stimulus to the securing of results in natural histor}^ work. 

 This claim is unworthy of a thoughtful man. It is, to say the 

 least, narrow in the extreme. Without desiring to strike com- 

 parisons, I could name two non-collecting ornithologists in Aus- 

 tralia who, in my opinion, have done more to promote human in- 

 terest, human knowledge, and human happiness (in this subject) 

 than the whole bunch of men who kill for private cabinets.* 

 Moreover, I submit that the late \\\ H. Hudson, of England — 

 than whom there was no stronger opponent of collecting — did 

 more, single-handed, to broaden the lives of his fellow-Britishers 

 than the whole monumental grou[) of British ornithologists whom 

 Mr. Ashby quotes as supporting his chamj)ionshi]) of "real 

 student collecting." 



It is, indeed, a little amazing lo find a man like ]\Ir. Ashby, 

 one with tastes for "the things that are more excellent," insisting 

 that the making of skins (with killing as an amiable prelude) has 

 disciplinary value for careless youth. Is there not infinitely more 

 restraint exercised in controlling the imjjulse to meddle with 



* It will be well, in the interest.s of clarity, to state that the two men 

 to whom I refer are Donald Macdonald, of Victoria, and E. J. 

 Banfield, of Queensland. 



