10 Mr. A. Haagner o/> the Profevtive 



of the forest ; it is seldom without fruit, and forms the 

 favourite haunt of the Lory ; it is there they may be found 

 if you seek diligently, but they are by no means cons[)icuous, 

 hidden amongst its sheltering leaves." This I can fully 

 substantiate by my own experience of these birds during the 

 month of January 1907. 



Order S T R I G E S. 



Families Stri(;id.e and Bubonid^. 



The re.'isons for an Owl requiring protective coloration are 

 obvious to anyone conversant with the habits of the members 

 of this order, and need not be detailed here. Probably every 

 species of. the Striges is more or less endowed with this 

 provision of nature — at least everything seems to point that 

 way. The birds are lighter or darker in coloration as their 

 place of abode may require, even to the extent, as we well 

 know, that those species inhabiting the regions of snow and 

 ice are white or very nearly so. Of South African Owls, all 

 thone with which I can claim personal acquaintance are cer- 

 tainly protectively coloured : Strix capensis, Strix Jlammea^ 

 Scops capensis, Asio capensis, and Bubo maculosus. With 

 reference to the last named, which is a fairly common bird 

 in the district in which I reside, I have had some corre- 

 spondence with Mr. W. L. Distant, the editor of the ' Zoolo- 

 gist ' magazine. He is of the opinion that this species does 

 not possess protective resemblance in the same sense as this 

 term is generally understood, and ascribes to the bird what 

 he calls " active mimicry " ; as he says the bird consciously 

 conceals itself. Perhaps it does this ; the instinct implanted 

 in every dumb creature would lead it to do this : but with 

 all due respect to Mr. Distant's superior knowledge in 

 matters zoological, I must contend that if its coloration was 

 not of the protective order, of what use would the conscious 

 concealment of the bird be, miless it crept into a hole or 

 otherwise completely hid itself? Therefore why should the 

 mere fact of its conscious concealment be against the theory 

 of " protective resemblance "? I will just relate two 



