108 



THE OOLOQI8T 



and oologists, both living and dead. 



As to critics of the oological stu- 

 dent, however, the more ignorant he 

 is of the subject in hand, the more 

 narrow his logic, and the more sweep- 

 ing his condemnation of the oological 

 field of science. 



Just whether an ornithologist, — ^and 

 this includes the taxidermist, who 

 takes more pride in setting up a fine 

 specimen than in the study of the bird 

 in life, — needs a hundred skins of any 

 one species of bird, I cannot be the 

 judge. Possibly he does need them 

 for the work he has in hand. Let us 

 hope so anyway. The ornithologist, 

 studying the bird's dead body or skin, 

 needs material, but great in mass, as 

 it may seem, represents only a very 

 small proportion of bird destruction. 

 There are many great agencies of 

 bird destruction, but scientific study 

 and research cannot truly shoulder 

 a very heavy load of the responsibil- 

 ity. But still, in the LIFE of the bird 

 does all reproduction depend; and yet 

 this phrase can be reversed to read: 

 upon REPRODUCTION, does all bird 

 life depend! 



The foregoing remarks are not in- 

 tended for a criticism of the skin col- 

 lector, but rather a defence of his real 

 scientific work. I have enlarged upon 

 it because it is also condemned by 

 the unlearned in certain laws of Na- 

 ture effecting bird life, and the point 

 desired to bring out will be treated 

 further along, notwithstanding the 

 fact that some condemnation of the 

 oologist originates with some special- 

 izing ornithologists who feel it an ab- 

 solute necessity to possess hundreds 

 of birds' skins of a single species. 



Apparently there can be no denial 

 of the fact that the spirit to sepcialize 

 along some line, is as potent among 

 professional ornithologists, as among 

 those who follow ornithological stu- 

 dies in a more humble way. Often 



have I been impressed with an exhi- 

 bition of these features in the written 

 or spoken word of some ornithologist 

 of rank. Om the other hand, I find, 

 very generally, that the average oolo- 

 gist has made a wide study of the bird 

 itself, and not only able to describe 

 the cabinet series of eggs, but if he 

 is active in the field making his col- 

 lection, he is acquiring a very thor- 

 ough knowledge of the bird's life his- 

 tory in all its phases, discovering 

 some scientific truths of import ap- 

 pertaining to either the eggs, or the 

 birds themselves. 



I do not wish, however, to pass over 

 this subject without calling attention 

 to the fact that, too often, the oologist 

 seems satisfied with mere dates and 

 numbers in describing a series of 

 eggs. But still this may be the pur- 

 pose of the description, and therefore 

 the purpose served, although much 

 could have been said of other interest- 

 ing features. 



The collection of a set of eggs con- 

 stitutes a robbery, to some persons a 

 very cruel and unpardonable act; but 

 to the observing and deep thinking 

 oologist, a fact of the most temporary 

 loss; for he 'has learned that birds, al- 

 most without exception, set about im- 

 mediately to renewed efforts of nidi- 

 fication when they are disturbed by 

 robbery, or otherwise. He also knows, 

 often to his sorrow, that when the 

 bird's life is taken, there ceases to be 

 either a chance for future robbery, or 

 for the bird's reproduction for all time 

 to come. Hence the taking of a bird's 

 life also constitutes a robbery, and 

 one with an irreparable loss far great- 

 er than that of taking a nest of eggs. 



So it would seem wise for those 

 critics ever ready to condemn an oolo- 

 gist for his methods of bird study, to 

 at least, give a more equitable distri- 

 bution of criticism among the various 

 causes detrimental to bird life. In- 

 deed he could ignore the work of the 



