74



Correspondence.



will send you their names, pledging themselves to do their possible to

combat this thoughtless and discreditable consumption of cage-fatted game

birds ? Every' revolution was once the thought of one mind, and who shall

say that half a thousand sturdy aviculturists cannot do somewhat to turn

the flow of so desultory' a current as public opinion.


G. A. MOMBER.


[While thoroughly agreeing with Col. Momber’s sentiments, we feel

that Bird Protection hardly conies within the scope of the Avic. Mag. We

hope, however, to publish a complete account of the habits and migrations

of this bird, from the pen of Mr. Seth-Smith. next month, and those who

wish to bring about the very' necessary legislation should communicate with

the Roy. Soc. for the Protection of Birds, 23, Queen Anne’s Gate, S.W.]



NOTES ON THE AGE OF BIRDS IN CONFINEMENT.


Sir,— I regret that in the introductory remarks in my Notes on this

subject (supra p. 34) I have inadvertently' omitted to refer to Dr. A. G.

Butler’s important paper, in which he gives a long list of the ages of birds

kept by himself (Avicult. Mag., I. 1910, p. 181), and which, in fact, was the

first devoted to this enquiry. A. Gunther.



THE SULPHURY SEEDEATER.


Sir, —Since reading Mr. Davies’ letter in the November number of

the Magazine, I have had an opportunity of inspecting the series of skins

of this Seedeater in the Natural History Museum and I have come to the

conclusion that the female mentioned in my notes is, as Mr. Davies suggests,

a female 6\ albignlaiis, though a somewhat abnormal specimen.


I will not review the evidence which I relied on further than to say'

that it included three odd coincidences : one, that I compared this bird care¬

fully' with a skin, in a private collection, labelled S. sulpliuratus ? ; two,

that it was imported with, paired with and had identical call-notes with a

male Sulphury’, and, three, that the member from whom I obtained the

other female had a similar experience.


I will, therefore, only' say that I am exceedingly sorry for the error

and that I beg to tender a sincere apology both to the Society and to Dr.

Butler. I have already' written privately' to the latter and am glad to know

that I have been forgiven. I may add that I have always found Dr. Butler’s

descriptions of plumage and other data most accurate and they have been

of the greatest possible assistance to me. Had the description of the

female of N. sulphuratus to which I referred been original, I should not have

doubted its accuracy for a single moment, but Dr. Butler expressly tells us

that he has not (or had not at that time) ever possessed a female of this

species.


I must also thank Mr. Davies for his kind assistance in clearing the

matter up. I am not sorry to have this opportunity of withdrawing (by



