322 NATURAL SCIENCE. may. 



We regret to have to agree with such a competent ornithologist that 

 the cry is probably well-founded. Interesting hawks and owls are apt 

 to be classified under the simple title of " vermin " ; and, in spite of a 

 well-known remark of the late Professor Thorold Rogers, vermin are 

 not as a rule allowed much law. Nor is this antipathy to the winged 

 creation, which justly arouses Lord Lilford's anger, at all confined to 

 the present century ; he quotes from a statute of the sixteenth to this 

 effect : '* 45 item that no person shall sufiire no kyte, busserd, 

 pye, nor fleshe crow to brede, and their yonge to fly away from the 

 grownd uppon payne of losing xiid." Presumably the fine was 

 large enough to secure obedience. Nor, unfortunately, does the 

 redundancy of negatives in the above sentence imply an affirmative. 

 There is no doubt at all about the relentless policy ordained. 



Lord Lilford alludes to the sparrow in North America. A few 

 years ago, comparatively speaking, there were no sparrows at all in 

 the United States. Now there are so many that a bulky volume 

 has been written to bring home to them their iniquities. And after 

 the impeachment, the sentence is pronounced that the unfortunate 

 birds are to be dealt with by the help of " London purple " and 

 " Paris green." These are, it is perhaps hardly necessary to state, 

 euphemisms for deadly compounds of arsenic. The sparrow has, 

 however, triumphed over these kindly attentions on the part of its 

 hosts ; not so the rarer Accipitres of our islands. Lord Lilford makes 

 the honourable boast that he himself has never offered a price for the 

 killing of any bird. We respectfully off"er him our congratulations ; 

 but it is clear that he is a real vara avis among ornithologists. The 

 main claim for distinction in that science, as it appears to us, is to 

 possess the largest possible collection. It is all very well for ornitho- 

 logists to complain ; but they are among the chief sinners, and the 

 blood of most rare birds lies upon their heads. 



A propos of the persecution of rare birds so ill-advised as to 

 occasionally visit the inhospitable shores of Great Britain, anyone 

 who takes up those for the most part exceedingly arid catalogues of 

 the birds of a county cannot fail to have been struck by the remark, 

 of not infrequent occurrence, that such and such a rare species is 

 known by one example "shot " at this or that locality. The excuse 

 offered is that the visits are literally flying visits, and that there is no 

 chance of a permanent settlement. This may be true, but it is by no 

 means proved. The birds have had no chance of proving or dis- 

 proving the allegation. The British Ornithologists' Union comprises 

 nearly, if not quite, all of the ornithologists of this country, and 

 Lord Lilford is its president. If they were to follow the excellent 

 example of the president and resolutely decline to buy any 

 specimen of a scarce bird shot in this country, the supply would cease 

 with the cessation of the demand. At the very lowest estimate no 

 harm would be done by the adoption of such a course. And it is 

 possible that the fauna of the country would be ultimately enriched. 



