The Oncsiion of Amalgamation. 145 



we know, of inanv years' staiuliiiif : negotiations favouring this oljject 

 have more tlian once been on foot. It has been said, and well said, 

 time after time that there is no oi)position between the Avicultural Society 

 and the Foreign P.ird Club. To the man in the .street it must indeed 

 seem amazing that in these days of dear pajjer, dear illustrations, and 

 emptying aviaries there .should be two Societies, both professing the same 

 object, both hampered by many difficulties, and by loss of members due 

 to the War, vet each pursuing its own way — disunited, dissevered, dis- 

 rupted — as if their aims were poles apart. 



•' The cost of ]iroduction is enormous. Those of us who study the 

 business side of natural hi.story publishing understand only too well whv 

 the coloured illustration is banished from our front page, and the brevier 

 type from our correspondence column. Only by drastic economy has 

 it been pos.sible to keep the fiag flying : indeed, there are many natural 

 history journals that have failed to survive the War. 



■' Under these circumstances we believe that Mr. Workman's letter 

 will be of the greatest service to zoology. Should the Foreign Bird 

 Club wish to be reabsorbed into the Avicultural Society — the parent from 

 which it originally sprung — a great gain, not only to aviculture, but to 

 ornithologv in general, would inevitably ensue. 



G. R." 



-<y 



Mr. R. SnQ.qitt, a member of F.B.C. Council has written 

 as under. 



Suggitt's Lane, 



Cleethorpes. 

 June roth, 1919. 



Sir, — I think we should publish both Mr. Workman's letters in the 

 " A.M.," and the Editor's comments thereon in B.N. There are, of course 

 arguments both for and against amalgamation : personally, I am dead against 

 "t, but, as a member of the Council I think it is our duty to have the matter 

 fully gone into now, and settled one way or the other. 



I think we should ask our Council and the members to express their 

 ni)inions, not necessarily for publication. 



It is, in my opinion, incumbent upon you as Editor to give our members 

 your views on the matter. I, however, most sincerely hope acrimony will 

 not enter any discussion. As the Editor of A.M. says, there is no opposition 

 between the F.B.C. and A.S., at the same time we must guard against B.N 

 becoming a purely technical journal, to the detriment of aviculture and the 

 inexperienced of our members. You mav publish both letters if vou think 

 fit. 



R. SUGGITT, 



^ ^ 



