178 Letters, Extracts, and Notes. [Ibis, 



advanced a step, while if his note concerning the plumages 

 lead to the recognition of subspecies not otherwise deter- 

 mined, we may through them delve into the history of the 

 evolution of the species. 



I would refer those interested in this subject to my paper 

 in the present number concerning these Parrots, which was 

 in the hands of the Editor before I saw Lord Tavistock's 

 letter. 



Yours, &c., 



Foulis Court, Grkgory M. Mathews. 



Fair Oak, Hants. 



29 November, 1917. 



The Green Sandpiper. 



Sir, — Concerning your editorial note to my paragraph 

 on the Nesting of the Green Sandpiper in Great Britain, to 

 the effect that " Until eggs and jaarents are taken and 

 identified, we feel that Ave must regard the breeding of the 

 Green Sandpiper in Great Britain as unproven," may I 

 draw your attention to Rule 7 in the Rules of the B. 0. U. ? 

 Here it states that if any Member " shall have personally 

 assisted in or connived at the capture or destruction of any 

 bird, nest, or egg in the British Isles, by purchase or other- 

 wise, likely, in the opinion of the Committee, to lead to the 

 extermination or serious diminution of that species as a 



British bird, the Committee shall have power to 



remove that gentleman's name from the List of Members.'" 



Had I done as your editorial suggested, simply to convince 

 sceptical fellow-ornithologists, I should probably have been 

 so treated, and should have well deserved it. 



Surely, Sir, when the young, quite unable to fly, are 

 seen with their parents (by three witnesses), it is proof 

 enough of their having been hatched there, without having 

 to slaughter one or all of them to prove it? 

 Yours, &c., 



H. W. Robinson, M.B.O.U. 



Lancaster. 

 30 November, 1917. 



