(37) 



wanton destruction, and should, if possible, be prevented. 



Do we want to popularize Ornitholoj^y? I believe I have stated my side 

 of the question, that we do want to popularize our science, fairl}', and with- 

 out prejudice. The living- question for us is bird protection. 



How can we secure the best results? I would say by education. Get 

 the teachers at work, get the sportsmen interested in the observation of 

 game laws, urge the importance of bird protection on the people, show the 

 folly of using- "stuffed" birds for head ornamentation, and a silent revolu- 

 tion in favor of the birds is bound to take place. Then every roadside will 

 teem with the brood of the quail, the drowsy yeomanry will be awakened 

 by the early matin of our friendly robin, and the thrasher, securely tipping- 

 the topmost twig' of a towering tree, and shaking his little throat, will 

 send forth a song the wild, artless harmony of which will gladden the 

 hearts of mankind, and inspire them to nobler thoughts. Then men will 

 bow their heads before the g-ush of melody bursting- from every coppice 

 and impenetrable bramble, and, looking- through Nature, will see Nature's 

 God. 



DISCUSSION. 



DEAN CHAS. FOKDVCE: "I think the writer of this paper has referred 

 to a practically undeveloped field. If ever we are to do much in science we 

 must get into the common schools. Even though apparatus is not costly, 

 and thoug-h books are not very costly, they make that a plea that they can- 

 not touch this work. Now I believe it is true, and it has been my observa- 

 tion when in the schools over the state, that there is very little science work 

 being done, except along- restricted lines. In some way I believe that this 

 Union oug-ht to reach out and help the teachers, who are teaching inost of 

 the children of the state. The majority of our citizens are educated below 

 the high school. In some way, either by simplifying- the work that is to 

 be given, by simplifying apparatus, or by doing both, it seems to me that 

 we must reach out to these teachers and to these pupils." 



MR. G. H. condka: "I know personally of Mr. Tout's work, and thor- 

 oug-hly believe just what Prof. Fordyce has said. There are so many who 

 think that if you were to mention this matter to the pupil in the public 

 school, he would immediately become an egg collector, and that we would 

 make scientists of them all. It is not our mission in the public school to 

 train scientists, but to get the pupil enthusiastic, to lead him to seek for 

 truth, and to show him something real. If the birds are referred to as liv- 

 ing thing-s I know you will lead the boys and girls to the love of birds, and 

 they will not want to kill them. Mr. Tout is leading the teachers of his 

 county to study birds in just the manner he has described. 



REV. J. M. bates: "I know I am speaking truly when I say there are 

 manj' teachers who cannot tell a meadow lark. We must teach the teach- 

 ers before we can expect much work done in this line." 



MR. TOUT: The woi-k I outlined in the paper is, I believe, practicable. 

 I believe that the teacher must know more about a subject than he is able 

 to give to his classes. I would saj' that I do not believe in a teacher taking 

 up the subject of birds, or any science, and tr3'ing to teach it unless he 

 knows something about it. I know that at the York County' Institute last 

 summer we had an inspiration. Mr. Condra was there, and the last day 

 we had almost a bird day, and the teachers there are doing fairly satisfac- 

 tory work with the knowledg^e they gained from that institute. The plan 

 suggested here of teaching the teachers is the most important thing in in- 

 troducing ornithology in the public schools. 



