33 



On the whole, the balance of practical opinion in Europe seems 

 in favour of Schedules of protected species being confined to 

 those which are insectivorous ; to which a few which deserve 

 protection for aesthetic or scientific reasons should be added. 

 But in every country of large extent there is such variety in the 

 physical features and in the nature of the cultivation, and 

 consequently in the avifauna of the various districts, that con- 

 siderable scope should be allowed in all legislation for altering the 

 Schedule either by omission or additions, in order to suit the 

 needs of particular localities. 



Notices of schedules of protected birds, together -with the 

 prohibitions relating to them, should be conspicuously posted 

 throughout the districts affected ; and local names of the birds 

 should be always given to prevent offenders pleading the excuse 

 of ignorance. 



LOCAL OPTION FOR ADOPTION OR MODIFICATION 



OF LAWS. 



We have already indicated the futility of protecting a species 

 while nesting in one country, if it is destroyed in another country 

 through which it has to pass on migration to reach or leave its 

 breeding ground. No international system of bird protection 

 can be really successful unless there is some uniformity in its 

 apphcation. And what is true with countries holds good on 

 a smaller scale with counties. We find advantage has been 

 taken in most British counties of the power to apply for Pro- 

 tection Orders. Even had we space at our command for the 

 purpose no useful object would be served by a comparison of 

 the various Orders applied for and obtained by the various 

 Councils of counties and country boroughs.* The applicants are 

 bodies of men who rarely have much knowledge on the subject, 

 few of them " know a Hawk from a handsaw," and in the end we 

 see a vast number of Orders, many of them astounding in them- 

 selves but still more peculiar when compared with the Orders 

 in force in the surrounding counties. It is impossible to refrain 

 from doubting whether the economic side of the question has 

 been considered at all by some of these Councils. The Bullfinch, 

 for example, is undoubtedly terribly destructive. One of our 

 best field-naturalists, Mr. J. Whitaker, tells us how he once 

 gave the Bullfinch a " free run," and describes the result : — 

 " Not a dozen gooseberries did we get, and we have not had a 

 score of plums in ten years, in fact two good trees are half dead, 

 the result of not only almost all the flower buds being taken 



* See Sir Digby Pigott, op. cit., pp. 604-606. 



