216 R.A.O.U. Congress. ["^isffan" 



vision for 25 Fellows, that constitutes the essence of the proposal 

 for alteration. In submitting the motion, I should i)oint out 

 again that if the Union is to grow as strong as its objects war- 

 rant, it must offer more inducements to potential members. I 

 find that to those not closely interested in ornitholog>' four copies 

 of The Emu are hardly sufficient recompense for a year's sub- 

 scription; and there is nothing further except their right to par- 

 ticipate in the annual excursion — a privilege that has seldom been 

 restricted to members. Moreover, for those who are already 

 in the Union ranks, there should be some definite inducement 

 to research or other original work — some honour that cannot be 

 purchased. It is this consideration that has prompted the sec- 

 tion for the creation of Fellows. A distinction of this kind, not 

 being bought, but achieved through work, would be fittingly 

 appreciated, and the badge would be worn with pride as the 

 tangible expression of something attempted, something done. 

 For instance, the Fellowships awarded by the Geographical So- 

 ciety of Queensland appear to be much sought after; yet they 

 represent work of considerably less importance than that asso- 

 ciated with the R.A.O.U. Coincident with the awarding of such 

 Fellowships, the Union would be the gainer, firstly, through the 

 actual work on which the Fellowship was based, and, secondly, 

 through the advertisement received through the use of the badge. 



It is interesting to note that the American Ornithologists' 

 Union embraces no less than seven classes of membership. 

 Summed up, these are: — (1) Fellow^s, limited to 50 and eligible 

 for office; (2) Members, limited to 100, who share with Fellows 

 participation in the business of the Union; (3) Associates, un- 

 limited in number; (4) Foreign Members, divided into Fellows 

 (limited to 25) and corresponding Fellows (limited to 100). It 

 will be seen that the A.O.U. places a limit on both Fellows and 

 Corresponding Fellows. I consider, on reflection, that it would 

 be well to do so in our case, and the number should be smaller. 



My idea of Honorary Members is that the class should be 

 restricted to persons who. while not doing anything notable in 

 an original sense, have yet advanced the cause of bird protec- 

 tion or study in some notable way. A Minister of the Crown 

 who fights a good fight for a plumage or protection bill might 

 be regarded as a type of this class of member, which, of course, 

 must not be confused with the Life Member class. 



Finally, it may be suggested that now, when the Union is 

 "coming of age," is an opportune time at which to introduce 

 some broader-based system of membership recognition. The 

 above proposals seem to me to bid fair to meet the case. They 

 would stimulate members, and, while adding to the prestige of 

 the Union, would not involve the Council in unnecessary expense. 



I regret my inability to attend the Congress, but extend good 

 wishes for a successful time. 



