The Question of Amalgamation. I47 



matter finally. Certainly the responses we received from ottr 

 members were conclusive in showing us clearly that the majoritv 

 of our membership had no desire to amalgamate. 



Personally, I too, am strongly opposed to amalgamation, 

 and see no reason why we should sacrifice ourselves upon the 

 so-called altars of " general good of aviculture," and 

 " Zoology." 



F.B.C. has all to lose and nothing to gain from amalga 

 mation; if the day ever comes when we cannot carry on, then 

 the best course is to wind up ; a most unlikely contingency ! 



A Journal on the lines of the late " Zoologist " would 

 mean the loss of more than half our members. 



I have said I shall not criticise A.M., neither sha'l T, but 

 T am compelled to say that a similar Journal, speaking oidy of 

 the nature of its contents, would also mean the loss of a very 

 large section of our members. Moreover, present conditions 

 urge more strongly in favour of F.B.C. remaining a separate 

 society, than at anytime since it (F.B.C.) came into being. 



" Not in opposition to any other Societv : " We are not, 

 but there is a very strong opposition to amalgamation. We 

 exist to live and to publish the best Journal, suited to 

 our membership, which our means will allow. This course 

 has been pursued without any idea of opposing any other 

 society. Early in 1921 Bird Notes will " come of age." 



" Difficulties of botli Societies:" We mind cur owi'. 

 business and are only concerned with our own. Tl:c times are 

 abnormal, and in increasing the annual subscription (temporar- 

 ily) we are only doing what every other Journal, commercial or 

 private, has had to do. The dawn of better days is already 

 breaking, and present difficukies shotild automatically disappeai 

 in the not distant future. 



We note the Avicultural Society's willingness " to re- 

 absorb " us : Thanks no, we have no desire for this, the sponge 

 must seek moisture by other means. 



