314 Corrapofutatc*. Iapi-u 



'protectively colored 1 Mr. Thayer was writing loosely and had reference to 

 tin* countershading itself. Mr. Thayer's book is not written in a loose way. 

 It is a closely written book, on the Contrary, and the words are chosen care- 

 fully. Mr. Thayer was laying stress on the office of countershading in the 

 passage quoted. It doubtless never occurred to him thai it would be 

 necessary to argue for the efficacy of color-matching in concealment, nor 

 could he have foreseen that he would be aeeused of ignoring it. If he had 

 been arguing with any one who had the notion as to the all-powerfulness 

 oi countershading that Mr. Roosevelt lias aeeused him of. he would doubt- 

 less have turned his statement about and have said that the eountoi shaded 

 animal is obliterated by its protective coloration, and that even without 

 the countershading the background-matching 'would go far toward conceal- 

 ing an animal.' 



You took an unusual course, Mr Editor, in undertaking to apologise 

 editorially for these two charges of mine against Mr. Roosevelt. Was it 

 really so necessary? If you had been as intent on understanding Mr. 

 Thayer as you have been on defending Mr. Roosevelt, might you not have 

 reached a different conclusion as to the justice of my charges'.' 



\s to Mr. Chapman's communication, it seems to me that he is unneces- 

 sarily alarmed for the reputation of the bird-photographers. When I 

 ventured the opinion that "the birds in most photographs do not appear 

 at all as they would under average conditions in their natural surroundings,'' 

 I had reference solely to this matter of conspicuousness. In general 1 

 think that bird photographs are of inestimable value to the student, since 

 they show him some things which he could not possibly learn without them, 

 and mulling could have been farther from my thoughts than to charge 

 photographers with doing violence to nature in older to prove a point or 

 make a pretty picture. It needs no extended argument, however, to 

 prove that a bird in a picture, where the observer's eye is inevitably directed 

 towards it, is in the nature of things much more easily to be seen than in 

 the landscape out of doors, - as a general thing, 1 mean, for there are doubt- 

 less exceptions. Mr. Chapman himself says that "no doubt many bird 

 photographs aie made with the object of displaying their subject to the 

 best advantage." I think he might have said "most' instead of •many' 

 and still have kept within the bounds of truth, for is not that really the 

 aim of most bird photographs. — to show the bird in its natural surround- 

 ings as clearly and completely as possible? And such photographs are SO 

 far from being 'lacking in scientific value' that their scientific value de- 

 pends in great measure on their clearness in detail. When 1 said that 

 the photographer avoided subjects that were obscured, 1 meant, of course, 

 when he had before him a choice of individuals of the particular species he 

 was desirous of photographing, and doubtless such choice is often uncon- 

 scious. (Exception should perhaps be made of some of those "puzzle 

 pictures" referred to by Mr. Chapman, where the definite object IS to show 

 the inconspicuousness of the bird.) I believe that photographers regard 

 it as legitimate to cut away interfering twigs, etc., in order to reveal a 



