464 



NATURE 



[August 15, 1918 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 

 [The Editor does not hold himself responsible for 

 opinions expressed by his correspondents. Neither 

 can he undertake to return, or to correspond with 

 the writers of, rejected manuscripts intended for 

 this or any other part of Nature. No notice is 

 taken of anonymous communications.'] 



The Value of Insectivorous Birds. 



While I cordially agree with Dr. CoUinge's protest 

 in_ Nature of July 25, p. 407, against the indis- 

 criminate destruction of small birds, I think he over- 

 rates the extent of the mischief that has been and 

 is being done. No doubt the owners or tenants of 

 market-gardens and orchards are not careful to dis- 

 tinguish between hurtful and beneficent species, but 

 Ihere^ are vast tracts of country where nobody dreams 

 of killing song-birds, though schoolboys have been, 

 are, and, I fear, will continue to be, incorrigible nest- 

 harriers. 



Dr. Collinge denounces the Wild Birds' Protection 

 Act of 1880 and the amending Acts as "practically 

 dead letters." Doubtless they share in the imper- 

 fection of all human legislation; but if they are in- 

 operative in any district, the fault lies with the local 

 authority. I had charge of two of the amending Acts 

 in their passage through the House of Commons, and 

 was strongly urged to prepare a schedule of species 

 for universal application. I declined to do so, think- 

 ing rt better to leave county councils to provide pro- 

 tection for such birds as local c'onditions rendered 

 desirable. A schedule that might be suitable for Sussex 

 would be grotesquely inapplicable to Caithness, and 

 vice versa. 



I will cite the goldfinch as illustrating good results 

 from the Acts. It is not an insectivorous bird, but, 

 whereas it subsists exclusively on the seeds of such 

 weeds as thistle, charlock, coltsfoot, and the like, it 

 must be reckoned among the farmer's and gardener's 

 most diligent allies. It is more easily taken by decoy 

 than almost anv other song-bird, and is eagerly" sought 

 for by bird-catchers because of its popularity as a cage- 

 bird. Owing to the nefarious industry of these gentry 

 goldfinches had practically disappeared from Scotland 

 when Lord Avebury passed his Act in 1880. About 

 the end of last centurv they began to reappear. Here, 

 in Galloway, the bird-catchers set to work with them 

 at once, but a note to our Chief Constable put the police 

 on the alert, and the mischief was stopped at once. 

 Now we have plenty of these beautiful and beneficent 

 finches, thanks entirely to the countv council's powers 

 under the Acts. 



While I do not understand whv Dr. Collinge 

 describes the kingfisher and the dipper as "most 

 beneficial," I am surprised that he does not mention 

 the laowing, an insatiable insect-eater. It is the onlv 

 one of our wild birds of which both the carcass and 

 the eggs are habitually offered for sale and eaten. 

 Eittle harm is done by taking the early laid eggs, 

 most of which would, if left on the ploughland, be 

 destroyed in the process of sowing and harrowing, but 

 to kill the birds should be constituted an offence. 



Starlings have increased in numbers a hundredfold 

 in my own recollection, and probablv no single species 

 of small bird accounts in this country for insects in 

 the same quantity as they do. It rnust be owned, 

 however, that ripening fruit crops require protection 

 from starlings. 



While I am very far from differing from Dr. Col- 

 linge on the importance of the subject of his paper. I 

 venture to think that more good might be done bv 

 stimulating the activity of county councils in the 

 NO. 2546, VOL. lOl] 



matter of bird protection than by finding fault with the 

 .\cts enabling them to provide it. 

 Monreith. Herbert Maxwell. 



With reference to Sir Herbert Maxwell's comments 

 on my article in Nature of July 25, I think he has 

 overlooked one of the causes I mentioned in con- 

 nection with the present scarcity of our insectivorous 

 birds, viz. the severity of the winter of 1916-17 and, 

 to a smaller extent, of that of 1917-18. 1 should like, 

 therefore, to direct his attention to a recent and valu- 

 able report on the su6ject by Messrs. Jourdain and 

 Witherby (British Birds, 1918, vol. xi., pp. 226-71 ; 

 vol. xii., pp. 26-35), wherein they point out, as the 

 result of a very careful and prolonged inquiry, the 

 enormous mortality that has taken place, in some 

 cases to the extent of 80-90 per cent, in certain 

 counties. 



The kingfisher and the dipper I regard as beneficial 

 because both species consume a large quantity of 

 injurious insects. In the case of the former species, 

 an investigation upon which I am at present engaged 

 shows that much of the food is of a neutral nature, 

 and that any harm it does is more than counter- 

 balanced by the good. I did not mention the starling, 

 as I do not think that it requires any protection at 

 present; indeed, in many parts of the country it is 

 so numerous as to call for repressive measures. - 

 • I fully agree with Sir Herbert Maxwell's remarks 

 on the lapwing, and would point out that under the 

 name of peewit this bird is included in the schedule 

 of the Act of 1880. Of the 106 local authorities out 

 of 120 in England and Scotland that have put into 

 force the amending Act of 1894 (57 & 58 Vict., c. 24), 

 which prohibits the taking or destroying of wild birds' 

 eggs, only eight Scottish authorities have placed this 

 bird upon their list, and the ten English counties 

 which protect the eggs .of all wild birds (cf. Oke's 

 "Game Laws," 1912, and Marchant and Watkins, 

 "W.B.P. Acts," 1897). Why have the remain- 

 ing eighty-eight authorities been waiting nearly a 

 quarter of a century before doing the same? Again, 

 only twenty-three authorities afford protection to the 

 eggs of tlie skylark, 36-5 per cent, of the food of 

 which is beneficial as against 13 per cent, injuriou-s 

 and 50-5 per cent, neutral. Numerous other instances 

 might be quoted. 



Whether one regards the Act of 1880 from the point 

 of view of the ornithologist, farmer, fruit-grower, 

 forester, or fisherman, it is unsatisfactory (i) in the 

 number and species it affords protection to, (ii) in 

 the penalties it imposes, (iii) in the absence of any 

 provision for revision at stated periods, and (iv) in 

 its lack of precision. Moreover, in entrusting the addi- 

 tions and general administration of the Act to the 

 county councils it has proved largely ineffective. 



Walter E. Collinge. 



The L^niversity, St. Andrews. 



Preparing " Palates " of Mollusca. 



Prolonged cooking in a strong solution of soap is 

 a much more satisfactory method of cleaning these 

 interesting objects than the commonly recommended 

 method with caustic potash. The plan which I have 

 tried with success is to place the materials in the 

 soap solution in a small phial, which is enclosecT 

 in a sand-bath, and then left on a hot part of the 

 kitchen range. In a few hours all the surrounding 

 tissues, or even the whole of the rest of the animal, is 

 as completely disintegrated as it would be with the 

 Uauor potassae method, and the teeth all stand out 

 bright and clear, but there is not the same risk of 

 the so-called "palate" becoming disintegrated or curl- 

 ing up and becoming brittle. G. H. Bryan. 



