1897] CORRESPONDENCE 359 
WOMEN versus BIRDS 
In Natural Science for August (p. 77), the question is asked as to what more we can do 
besides attempting to influence women in the home-circle so as to prevent their bar- 
barian slaughter of the birds for decoration of themselves. I think we could do a great 
deal more, and wi!l instance this by an account of what occurred here some years ago. 
A Frenchman settled down in the neighbourhood of Mount Ophir in Malacca as a col- 
lector of bird skins for the trade. He employed a large number of native hunters, and 
the slaughter of our most beautiful birds—sun-birds, trogons, fairy bluebirds, and many 
others—was horrible. However, the Government, on learning this, passed an ordinance 
forbidding the killing of birds in the colony without a licence. The man then moved 
to one of the native states out of colonial jurisdiction, but the law was immediately 
introduced there. Then it is said he sold the goodwill of the business to an unsuspect- 
ing native and disappeared. The native, of course, on attempting to carry on the 
business was arrested. Since then our birds have returned to their desolated haunts 
and are as plentiful as ever, and no further attempt has been made to establish the trade 
in this country. Indeed, I can hardly remember a case where it has been found neces- 
sary to put the law in force, though, of course, a few birds are now and then illegally 
killed by shooters. Of course we are much assisted by the licensing of guns. Natives, 
for excellent reasons, are only allowed gun licences for purposes of defence against tigers, 
robbers, etc., or to keep away wild pigs or other destructive animals, and this checks 
bird-killing very well. 
In Borneo, under British rule or influence, the Mias is also protected, no person 
being allowed to kill one except by special permit, only granted for scientific purposes. 
And licences to collect orchids are also issued there to check the wholesale destruction 
of these plants. 
The forests of the Dindings, especially one jungle round a hill called Gunong Tungul, 
are tenanted by rhinoceroses, which the natives used to trap in pitfalls. As the animal 
is perfectly harmless, and a very interesting beast, the District Officer, Mr W. C. Mit- 
chell, endeavoured to prevent its destruction, and though the Government did not see 
their way to legislating to save it, he succeeded in preventing any more from being 
killed. The Rhinoceros is considered by the Chinese as a very valuable medicine, or 
rather collection of medicines. They pay large sums for its carcase, and dry and pre- 
pare every bit of it to ship to China. This was the only inducement to the Malays to 
kill it. Thanks to this action there are still plenty in this district, where I have more 
than once come across them, or heard them gallop off snorting like a pony. 
Now, for the trade in bird-skins in colonies or countries under British influence there 
can be no excuse. It can and should be stopped by local ordinance. The difficulty lies 
in countries not under our control, such as Mexico, Brazil and New Guinea. In nearly 
all these places, however, there are naturalists, and often Natural History Societies. It 
should be the duty of all scientists in these countries to bring pressure to bear upon 
their Governments to check or prevent the trade in bird skins. Part of New Guinea is 
under British influence, and any destruction of Birds of Paradise here could be pre- 
vented. The naturalists of Holland and Germany might also be asked to approach 
their Governments on the subject, and to stop the trade in their Colonies. 
In the list of birds destroyed given in the article in Natwral Science, it is not alto- 
gether easy to guess from what part of the world the skins and plumes are derived. 
Some are evidently Indian—e.g., Peacock, Indian Parrots, Impeyan Pheasant, &c. ; 
others Tanagers and Humming Birds from South America. Let our naturalists at home 
first trace up the sources of the supply, and then those in the countries whence the 
skins come can be appealed to to bring the matter before their respective Governments. 
This plan, though it will probably not entirely stop the trade, will at least save the 
birds of some corners of the world, and will strike a blow at the fashion which I trust 
it may never recover. H. N. RIDLeEy. 
SINGAPORE, April 25, 1897. 
AUSTRALIAN NATURAL HISTORY 
As an Australian worker I trust that you will allow me to protest against the hostile 
criticism of an Australian student, as such, by a London authority, as such, on p. 5 of 
this volume. Criticism of Australian work upon its merits will always be welcome, but 
when a reviewer is invoked to write down a paper because if a certain arrangement 
‘‘was not made it ought to have been” then fair play is disregarded and the honest 
aims of criticism made subservient to less worthy ends. For it is evident that under 
ordinary circumstances the brilliant writer of your editorial would not have stooped to 
crush a weaker brother on the score of a few misprints, and the difference which will 
ever exist in their view of what constitutes a ‘species’ between a ‘splitter’ and a 
“lumper.’ ‘ 
