Vol. XXXI .. i 1/17 



and was simph presenting Mr. Thayer's views as concisely us possible. 

 What Mr. Thayer says is as follows: The reader . . . .is now in a position 

 In i a in ive lli< fallacy of the slalcmt at preralenl in, former years and still made 

 in/ certain writers, that a protectively colored annual of the type described 

 above escapes detection because being of a dull brown color like the ground and 

 tin bushes, it looks wht n it sits motionless like a dad or a slump or some such 



inanimate thing . , . The protectively calami, animal, an the oilier hand, is an 



it inn obliterated by its countergradation of shades. , . .If these animals were 



merely brown or gray like rind:: or stumps they would not be concealed, because 

 their Structural farms an too distinct, and the eyes of enemies are, keen to 



detect their characteristicmodelling and outlines. On theother hand, a perfect 

 shade (/nidation, even of some rankly brilliant color would go far toward con- 

 cealing an animal.' 



Mr. Roosevelt can surely nol be charged with misquotation here! Mr. 

 Allen was probably contrasting his remarks with p. b r > of Mr. Thayer's 

 book instead of wil h p. L9. 



There are oilier quotations the significance of which would lie materially 

 changed if the entire paragraph or correlative matter elsewhere were con- 

 sidered. Indeed in ;i complicated discussion such as this it. is quite possible 

 to quote apparently contradictory statements from different parts of the 

 -.line paper. The editor repeats his regret that through his oversight 

 statements like the above were allowed to pass uncorrected. 



Wit.mkk Stone.] 



The Scientific Value of Bird Photographs. 



To the Editor of 'The Auk': 



Dear Sir: In selecting as the major title of his paper in 'The Auk' for 

 October (Vol. XXIX, pp. 489-507) ' Roosevelt vs. Thayer. . . ' rather than 

 Revealing vs. Concealing Coloration, Mr. Francis H. Allen evidently be- 

 trays his mental attitude toward a controversy to which his article is 

 contributed 



Fair-minded, critical discussion of any subject tends to advance our 

 understanding of it, but criticism which is unpleasantly personal, even 

 discourteous in tone, which accuses a writer of misquoting, misrepresenting 

 and perverting, of being dogmatic, ignorant, and grossly careless, obscures 

 the main issues ami for this, as well as for other reasons, is to be deplored. 



Particularly is this true when the criticism is not only unwarranted, but 

 when t lie crit ic himself appears to be in error. 



To illustrate Mr. Roosevelt's "inaccurate habit of mind and slap-dash 

 style of thinking" Mr -Allen (I.e.. p. 492) challenges Mr. Roosevelt's refer- 

 ence 9 to photographs of certain birds as illustrating their COnspicuousneSS 

 in nature, and writes thai Mr. Roosevell quite overlooks "theobvious facts 



■ Italicized sentences quoted verbatim from Mr. Thayer's book (italics mine). 

 'Bull Am. Mu.s. \;m Him , Vol. XXX, 1911, pp. 156; 250. 



