THE OSPREY. 



11 



AGAINST EXCESSIVE E(tG COEEECTING. 



Washinc.ton, D. C.,Jt///r 17. 1899. 

 Editor of thk Osi'ki;n-: 



I find ill the May iiuinber of the OspkivV a 

 number of thiiif^s thiit interest me i;reatly. I 

 was especially please:! witVi the manner in which 

 several of your correspondents handle the Rev. 

 W. F. Hennin^er, whose article on the "Scourg-e 

 of Ef,''54"-Collecting-" has excited so much ire. I 

 was pleased at this Billiiifj-so-ate, because it 

 simply emphasizes the weakness of their posi- 

 tion, and the strenj^-fh of his! Abuse has never 

 been reg'arded as argument, and if this is to be 

 taken as a sample, it will be loiii^- before it 

 comes to be so recogMiized. "'When you have no 

 case abuse the opposing- counsel," is said to be 

 a rule of practice among- certain lawyers. If it 

 were not a libel on the leg-al profession. I would 

 suffgest that certain of your correspondence 

 were better lawyers than ornitholog"ists! 



Now I am not moved b3' any maudlin senti- 

 mentality in the matter of collecting" birds or 

 their egg's, when there is even a reasonable sci- 

 entific excuse for so doing-. I would, without 

 the slig-htest compunction, shoot a bird in the 

 act of feeding- its young-, and then take the nest 

 and young-, if they were //reded for i-eal scic/ztific 

 study. I would not hesitate for a moment in 

 taking- the nest and eg-gs of a bird, if, by so do- 

 ing- the scic//ce of o/-//ithology co/ild he adva//ced. 

 But I would not collect forty sets of Ruby-throat- 

 ed Humming- Bird's eg-g's! I would not select 

 twenty-five sets of Whippoorwill's eg'g-s! I would 

 not take one hundred and fifty eg"g"s of the Red- 

 tailed Hawk! I would not collect nine hundred 

 and seventeen eg-gs of the Kentuck}' Warbler! 

 I could not convenientlj' handle "'one hvindred 

 and twenty-five sets of Brown Pelican's eg-gs! 



I am informed by reliable authority that there 

 is a private collection in this country compris- 

 ing- nearU' fifty thousand birds' eg-g-s. If this 

 be true, this collection is nearly as large as that 

 of the U. S. National Museum, and even larger 

 than that of the g-reat British Museum. Yet the 

 owner of this collection has //eve/' co//f/'ib/ited a 

 li//e to the scie//ec of o/i/ithology, or, as far as 

 I know, donated o/ loa//ed a// egg fo/- /-eat sci- 

 entific p/i/'poses! And this is scientific ornitho- 

 logy! This is why it is necessary to collect 

 large series of eggs! With these "absolutely 

 necessary" series on hand our enterprising orni- 

 thologist will be able to describe to a nicety the 

 varying shades of pure white in his forty sets 

 of Humming Bird's, eggs. He can g^ive the 

 absolute number of spots on his 917 Kentucky 

 Warbler's eggs, and present in fractions of a 

 millimeter, the range in size observable in 29 

 sets of Goldfinch's eg-gs, etc., ad //aiiseai//. 



In order to bolster up his position Mr. Norris 

 brings in Major Bendire because he "always 

 collected large series of egg's". It is perf ectU' 

 evident that Mr. Norris had not the honor of a 

 personal acquaintance with Major Bendire or he 

 would never have dared bring- him into this 

 malodorous discussion. Major Bendire did col- 

 lect series of egg's, and he made good use of 

 them too. which is more than Mi*. Norris can 

 seem to claim, but there is not a species in his 

 collection represented by the series above re- 



counted. Bendire was in symi)athy with every 

 honest, intelligent student of birds or their 

 eggs, l)ut there was no place in his economy for 

 frauds and charlatans. He was careful not to 

 do or say anything calculated to incite youthful 

 or incompetent persons to begin indiscriminate, 

 ill-judged egg-collecting-, and more than once too 

 he advised against giving precise information 

 about the nesting sites of our birds. Would that 

 the bin ft" old German were here to da3' to make 

 use of some of the vigorous language at his 

 ready command, in cases like this! 



One word more and I am done. It is really 

 l)itiful to see such a display of ignorance as 

 that relating to the abandonment of Latin 

 names for our birds, as on page 140. It would 

 have been kinder to the author had the editor 

 seen fit to suppress this portion of his commu- 

 nication. And in this connection I may add. 

 that in my judgment, the editor of the Ospkey 

 himself does positive harm to the science of 

 ornithology in giving color to the idea that we 

 shall ever be able to do without scientific names. 

 Because there are temporary differences of 

 opinion as to what Latin name a bird shall 

 bear is certainly no argument for the rejection 

 of all such names. People too ignorant to un- 

 derstand the question themselves are misled by 

 weig'-ht of authority. — F. H. K.nowi.ton. 



CRITICS ANSWERED. 



Waverly, Ohio, Juia' 28, 1899. 

 Editor of the Osprey: 



Enclosed you will find two articles, which I 

 kindly beg- you to publish. I would not have 

 written them, had not Messrs. Norris and Cris- 

 pin in the May number of vour esteesned Mag-a- 

 zine heaped pe/so/zal ab/ise on me. But for this 

 reason I think I ought to be granted a defense. 

 It is my last protest, but I ask for protection. 

 The May number did not reach me till in Juh-. 

 Dr. Coues in a "personal letter" allowed me a 

 reply, but as he has retired from your staff. I 

 must now confront a stranger. Please take the 

 May number, and read my articles carefully in 

 connection with those referred to, and I think 

 there will be no objection to their publication. 

 I ask this as a personal favor in defense of 1113-- 

 self and profession. 



RespectfulU' yours. 



Rev. W. F. Henningek. 



Mr. J. Parkf;r Norris, Jr., Enlichtexed. 



In the May Number of the Osprey Mr. J. 

 Parker Norris, Jr., undertook to criticize mj' 

 article of the February Number. To this criti- 

 cism or repU- let me make a few remarks. First- 

 ly regarding Major Bendire's omission. This 

 was done purposeh-, because it would be absurd 

 to place Bendire in the same class with Davie 

 and Norris. Bendire is too hig-h above their 

 standard and would thank Mr. Norris little for 

 trying- to degrade him thusly. 



Furthermore a reasonable amount of collect- 

 ing', even of a series of sets, is necessary' — a fact 

 which I never disputed. What I fought against 

 was the unreasonable amount of collecting, espe- 



