THE OOLOGIST. 



necessity build his Sre beneath the 

 overhanging trunk or the spreading 

 roots of some giant sycamore or oak, 

 so as to leave some mark of his vanda- 

 lism on a creation far beyond his in- 

 finitesimal ability to replace. 



I have now in my collection several 

 sets of this species taken in Texas, New 

 Mexico, Arizona and other southwest- 

 ern states as well as eight sets of my 

 own collecting; further I have sets 

 from states east of the Mississippi also, 

 and it is worthy of note that all the 

 western and southwestern collected 

 eggs are much larger, more clearly 

 shell marked and more brilliant in 

 their outer markings than are those 

 from the eastern states. The set rep- 

 resented in photo herewith averages 

 fully .25 inch longer than the average 

 of four sets from east of the Father of 

 waters. 



As may be seen from the illustration 

 this is a well marked set, yet I have 

 seen many, ana taken three or four 

 which were more strongly marked even 

 than these. They were taken April 

 12, 1900, from a hole, two by three feet, 

 in a rocky ledge on a steep sidehiil. No 

 diflaculty was experienced in walking 

 directly to the nest. In fact I have not 

 noticed that they try to conceal their 

 nests or to place them in inaccessible 

 positions 



This year on April 5th I took another 

 set from the same locality and only a 

 few feet from the old hole, so I suppose 

 it was from the same pair of birds. The 

 markings persist in size and position, 

 while the four eggs could not be separ- 

 ated by the calipers alone. No attempt 

 at nest building is ever made and the 

 nest smells worse than the Red-tails' I 

 mentioned in the May Oologist. 



I have never seen any egg which sur- 

 passes the egg of the Turkey Vulture 

 in beauty unless perhaps it be that the 

 Emeu, one egg of which I obtained 

 from the Publisher of the Oologist not 

 long ago. „ 



Harry H. Dunn, 

 FuUerton, California. 



A Consideration. 



In reading many of the articles in 

 current periodicals, a question must be 

 forced upon the minds of all true bird- 

 lovers. By bird-lovers I do not mean 

 to include those who simply see in 

 birds charming objects awakening a 

 coveting desire for personal possession, 

 but those who recognize in these 

 "feathered gems" fellow creatures 

 having right to existence, and the 

 power to enjoy same, entitled to re- 

 spect and possessini? traits of character 

 worthy of earnest and forbearing study. 

 The question which is suggested to 

 such students is how many persons in 

 the United States, collect birds their 

 nests and egsrs, one or all, of these how 

 many are there whose work in this 

 line actually adds to the sum total of 

 human knowledge, and of those who do 

 so add what percentage of their collect- 

 ing work continues to a desirable end. 

 In short what percentage of all such 

 collecting throughout the country, ac- 

 tually yields commendable results and 

 what percentage contributes to untold 

 evil? 



These are considerations which effect 

 not alone the mere "collector," but also 

 at least nine-tenths of those persons 

 who are posing as sincere students, and 

 perhaps conscientiously believe in the 

 value of their work. 



It is not my purpose here to enter 

 into that much discussed question of 

 what limits in collecting, the cause of 

 advancement of knowledge justifies. 

 "Who shall decide when doctors dis- 

 agree'" And that they do so disagree 

 on this subject, the columns of the pub- 

 lications on ornithology amply testify. 

 It has simply occured to me as a con- 

 sideration, why should not those who 

 are conscientious in the matter ask 

 themselves in sincere impartial hones- 

 ty, what the character of their work,., 

 their ability for it, and its results justi- 

 fy? 



