260 BRITISH BIRDS. 



being naturally limited ; and to protect a bird which has already 

 increased to such an extent would do no good, but only tend 

 to disturb the balance of nature. 



3. Mr. Py craft further says that the bird was " honourably 

 acquitted." Can this be said when there is only a difference 

 of 7 per cent, between the food harmful and the food bene- 

 ficial in effect taken, and that without four birds, sent 

 to us from a rehable source, containing fry of Salmonidce, 

 and mentioned in the report ? 



We are glad to have Mr. Pycraft's review of our report, 

 but we must suggest that he has not read it carefully. 



D. LosH Thorpe, M.B.O.U. 

 LiNN^us E. Hope. 



[The authors of this report are mistaken in their surmise 

 that our review was written hastily, and before digesting 

 all the facts this report claims to have estabhshed. But 

 we will reply to the points raised in the above letter seriatim. 



1. We did not attribute the use of the word " shellfish " 

 to the authors, but we were certainly wrong in concluding 

 that Crustacea and mollusca were included under " the 

 common term ' fish.' " 



2. The word " decision " seems to us perfectly justified. 

 In fairness to the authors we assumed that they had come to 

 •some decision before they made their " recommendation." 



3. There can be no two opinions about the unwisdom 

 of their " recommendation." The authors' attempted 

 justification therefor — abnormal increase — is quite unsup- 

 j)orted by facts, since they have failed, absolutely, to show 

 that the " abnormal " increase has yet exceeded the food supply. 

 Their further assumption that on a continued increase of 

 this species there is a " probability " — or even possibility, 

 which is by no means the same thing — of its becoming more 

 addicted to the taking of grain, is quite unsound. There are 

 a dozen " possibilities " in such an event. 



4. The authors' objection to the phrase " honourably 

 acquitted " is not justified, as they suppose, by the figures 

 they have quoted, for these are not altogether rehable. 



They should have given us the percentage of animal and 

 vegetable food, injurious, or beneficial to man's interests, 

 as the case may be, found in each stomach. On the system 

 they have adopted the idiosyncrasies in the choice of food of 

 particular individuals have been put to the credit, or discredit, 

 of aU the members of the colony. And, apart from this, it 

 would appear that the authors have not had sufficient ex- 

 perience to enable them to determine in every case which 

 species of insects are to be regarded as pests, or which may be 



