I IS Correspondence. LJ&n, 



that the photographers naturally chose the conspicuous subjects, avoiding 

 those that were at all obscured and getting their cameras into positions 

 where the birds would come out most clearly, and thus made the birds as 

 conspicuous as they possibly could, which was the end and aim of their 

 work. 1 take it that the birds in most photographs do not appear at all as 

 they would under average conditions in their natural surroundings " 



In making this statement Mr. Allen not only does not fairly represent 

 the views that Mr Koosevelt expressed in the paper referred to. but he 

 incidentally discredits the work of the bird photographer. No better 

 answer to his criticism of Mr Roosevelt's views can be found than in the 

 very paper in which they are presented, and I write in this connection 

 mainly in the defence of the field ornithologist who records some of his 

 studies with a camera 



No doubt many bird photographs are made with the object of displaying 

 their subject to the best advantage, but it does not follow that for this 

 reason most bird photographs are lacking in scientific value, or that they 

 do not faithfully portray nature. On the contrary, and replying in detail 

 to Mr. Allen's disparaging estimate of photographs of birds in nature. 

 1 maintain, on the basis oi the photographs contained in the works cited 

 by Mr Roosevelt, (1) that the photographer does /;<>.' avoid subjects that 

 "are at all obscured" (witness so-called pusile pictures of Grouse, 'Wood- 

 cock. Whip-poor-will, etc.), (2) that he does not always make the bird as 

 "•conspicuous" as possible, (3) that to make birds conspicuous is not "the 

 end and aim" of bird photography, and (4) that many bird photographs do 

 nt birds as they appear "in their natural surroundings." 



In his apparent eagerness, however, to convict Mr. Roosevelt of a 

 ''slap-dash style of thinking." and. as a side issue, the bird photographer 

 of misrepresenting his subject. Mr. Allen fails to call attention to the fact 

 that while Mr. Koosevelt mentions certain photographs to show that the 

 birds portrayed are revealingly colored, so Mr. Thayer publishes the 

 photographs of others to prove that they are conccalingly colored' Thus 

 Mr Koosevelt refers to photographs of Black Skimmers. Gannets, Guille- 

 mots. Ibises. Cormorants. Egrets, Anhingas. Pelicans, and other birds 

 which ore conspicuous in nature as well as in photographs; while Mr. 

 Thayer publishes l photographs (all taken by others) of the Virginia Rail, 

 American Bittern. Woodcock. Wilson's Snipe, Upland Plover. Ruffed 

 Grouse. Ptarmigan. Bob-white, Whip-poor-will, Night hawk and other 

 protectively colored birds to show that they are protectively colored 



In passing, it is well to note that while Mr. Koosevelt freely admits that 

 the birds just mentioned, and of which Mr. Thayer publishes photographs, 

 (ire protectively colored. Mr. Thayer does not admit that any bird is re- 

 vealingly colored In any event. I venture to claim that both writers 

 demonstrate the scientific value of the properly made bird photograph, 

 whether it be used as evidence to prove conspicuousness or inconspicuous- 

 ness. 



1 'Concealing ( in the Animal Kingdom.' 



