494 Correspondence. [oc|^ 



and the wide range offered for quotations on the several topics mentioned. 

 An appendix containing 285 titles referred to by numbers in the text, 

 gives the sources drawn upon. Naturally the same author is cited in 

 many different connections, so that some twenty of the principal sources 

 form the basis of nearly two hundred of the references. 



It may seem unkind to say that a careful reading of this very interesting 

 book has suggested a modification of the subtitle, to read, in place of 

 "the bird as he is in life," the bird as the author would have him in life, 

 since none of the bad traits of birds, — it must be admitted that all birds 

 are not wholly angelic, but share with man some of his bad traits as well 

 as all his good ones, — seem to be passed over in silence or with a statement 

 to the effect that the species has been woefully slandered by "sensational 

 writers." Very few birds are really more injurious than beneficial to man,, 

 and these are indirectly rather than directly so, through their destruction 

 of other birds of greater use to man than they are themselves. The 

 author's lapses, which are few, are on the side of friendship to the bird, 

 and do not detract materially from the usefulness of her book, which,, 

 besides affording pleasant and instructive reading to a host of bird lovers,, 

 will exert a much needed influence in behalf of the birds. — J. A. A. 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



Membership Conditions in the A. 0. U. 



Editors of ' The Auk' : — 



Dear Sirs: — I question the wisdom of the rule or by-law of the A. O. U. 

 which limits the number of "fellows" and the number of "members." 

 It seems to me that this is unjust, unreasonable and un-American from 

 every' point of view; though there may be good reasons for it which I do- 

 not understand, certainly none have ever come to my notice. It seems 

 to me that when the work of a "member" has reached a certain standard 

 of importance he should be advanced to a "fellow" — this standard, of 

 course, to be judged and determined by the Board of Fellows who elect. 

 From my point of view there are several men in the class of "fellows" 

 whose work, whose renown or whose service to ornithology is far inferior 

 to that of several "members" who cannot be advanced to "fellows" 

 because that class is full, and I ask if there is any justification in a limited 

 class of "fellows" sufficient to offset so unjust and unsatisfactory a con- 

 dition as this appears to be? 



Limiting the class of "members" also works a like injustice. The 

 class of "associate members" is open to anyone who has .$3.00 per annumi 



