April 8, 1920] 



NATURE 



69 



The trade wants them in thousands, and would not 

 seek a bird so rare that it was available only in 

 hundreds. 



1 think there is no evidence of any bird being 

 made extinct by acts of the plumage dealers, whose 

 interest lies in birds being abundant, but the Bill 

 allows the scientific collector to bring in the rarest 

 plumage. In this connection some persons emphasise 

 the destruction of insectivorous birds as being a pity ; 

 but an insectivorous bird may itself destroy beneficial 

 insects — say, dragon-flies, which themselves feed on 

 mosquitoes. 



Mr. C. W. Mason and I have published a very 

 careful analysis of the food of birds in India, and 

 we decided that herons were injurious (see Memoirs 

 of the Agricultural Department of India, vol. iii., 

 191 1). I have before me three such memoirs, all by 

 entomologists, relating to England, Australia, and 

 India ; and it is necessary to distinguish very clearly 

 what the value of a bird is. Apart from this, no 

 one interested in Nature could desire the extinction 

 of any species of bird or other life at all, and we 

 need not restrict our precautions solely to beneficial 

 birds. 



The third point is whether the proposed Bill will 

 protect the birds. It will not, because it simply pro- 

 hibits importation into England of all plumage except 

 ostrich and eider down, unless it is worn or is per- 

 sonal property. The plumage goes just the same to 

 Paris, and no bird is protected at all. The same 

 amount of plumage will come to England, only it will 

 be all made up in Paris. 



The fourth point is : What can be offered in its 

 place? I suggest the Bill should prohibit the import 

 of scheduled birds, and that if evidence is brought of 

 cruelty or of approaching extinction, the importation 

 of the bird from that locality should be prohibited by 

 simply adding it and its locality to the schedule. There 

 might well be a Standing Committee attached to the 

 Board of Trade to hear representations and to vary 

 the schedule. 



The '■egret is greatly mentioned. It is said to be 

 destroyed for its plumes while the young birds are 

 still helpless in the nest ; but I have photographs 

 of an egret farm in Sind, and there are hundreds of 

 such farms. The egrets' plumes are taken without 

 cruelty, and the birds are not killed. Why, then, 

 indiscriminatelv forbid egret plumes and destroy an 

 industry in India? Why not exclude Chinese egret, 

 and represent the matter to the Chinese Govern- 

 ment? Why bar also the possibilities of farming emu, 

 rhea, marabou, lyre-birds, pheasants, etc. ? 



The Committee for the Economic Preservation of 

 Birds up to August, 1914, endeavoured to put this 

 matter right. It is a fact that this Committee had 

 secured the co-operation of the plumage trade 

 of Paris, Vienna, Berlin, and London, and that the 

 wholjB trade voluntarily stopped the import and use of 

 the plumage of a number of birds which were thought 

 to be in danger of extinction or to be beneficial. This 

 was the only effort to secure the real remedy, inter- 

 national co-operation ; and the present Bill completely 

 wines out that possibility. 



Perhaps the present discussion will produce the 

 solid evidence (apart from opinion) on which the 

 supporters of the Bill rest; up to the present there 

 has been little other than sentiment. 



One last point that has a scientific bearing is that 

 the Bill allows the importation of nlumage for 

 scientific purposes and for museums. The scientific 

 collector specialises on rarities which the museums 

 need, and it is exactly this tvpe of collector who 

 needs to be stopped: but the Plumage Bill is backed 

 precisely by the ornithologists who want rare skins, 

 and so can £?Pt them. 



I think the Bill needs a great deal of recon- 

 sideration, that a reasonable i3ill can be drafted 

 which will protect birds, and that the present one 

 allows for tne collection ot the nearly extinct birds 

 and does nothing to protect the cases where there is 

 i^ruelty. H. M. Lefroy. 



If I were still in Parliament 1 should give as 

 cordial support to the Importation of Plumage (Pro- 

 hibition) Bill as 1 would have done to the late Lord 

 Avebury's Bill had 1 been in the House of Lords when 

 he introduced it. But I recognise that if the measure 

 is to receive support from men of science, it must 

 be based mainly on scientific rather than on humani- 

 tarian or sentimental grounds. 



I notice that Prof. H. M. Lefroy, in a recent letter 

 to the Times, seems to assume that the advocates of 

 prohibition are actuated by sentiment only. He asks 

 whether they consider it less cruel to kill spring 

 chickens for their flesh than pretty birds for their 

 plumage. If this is meant for argument, it seems 

 particularly feeble, unless the whole question of 

 the ethics of consuming, animal food is to be raised. 

 If it were as easy to rear egrets, birds of paradise, 

 rifle-birds, etc., for the sake of their plumage as it is 

 to rear cattle, sheep, and domestic fowls for their 

 flesh, probably none but extreme humanitarians would 

 raise serious objections, even if the birds had to be 

 killed, which is not necessary in ostrich-farming. 

 From a scientific point of view, the matter seems to 

 resolve itself into the question whether the extinction 

 or drastic reduction of the most beautifully clad birds 

 can be viewed with indifference. I cannot speak at 

 first hand about the extent to which reduction has 

 been carried, but the evidence on this subject has 

 proved sufficient to convince the Legislature of the 

 United States that restriction of the plumage trade 

 was necessary if some of the choicest species were 

 to be saved from extinction. 



I cannot but hold the conviction that the true 

 functions of naturalists are not limited to the mere 

 work of collecting, recording, and classifying, and 

 that it is incumbent upon them to aid in resistance to 

 the extermination of such existing species as do not 

 interfere with the welfare of human beings. But, 

 after all, I can claim no higher standing than that 

 of a field-naturalist, setting more store on a bird in 

 the bush than two in a glass case or on a lady's hat! 

 Herbert Maxwell. 



Monreith. 



The subject of the Importation of Plumage (Pro- 

 hibition) Bill now before Parliament is one in which 

 all zoologists, and, indeed, all lovers of Nature, should 

 take a lively interest. It seems almost certain that 

 much cruelty is involved in the operations of plume- 

 hunters, and it is diflRcult to see how it could be 

 otherwise, especially when the plumes are collected 

 during the breeding season. This question, however, 

 I leave to others who have the necessary evidence at 

 hand, together with the important problem of the part 

 played by the birds in the destruction of noxious 

 insects. 



The point I wish to emphasise is the irreparable 

 loss, not only to science, but also to mankind in general, 

 which will result from the extermination of many of 

 the most interesting and beautiful creatures that exist. 

 Unfortunately, there appears to be no limit to the 

 lust of personal gain. Were it possible to pluck a 

 star from the heavens and sell it for the decoration 

 of a lady's headdress, star-hunters would doubtless be 

 as active as plume-hunters in destroying man's rich 

 inheritance. 



It is clearlv our duty to preserve for future genera. 

 ' tions, as well as for our own enjoyment and edifica- 



NO. 2632, VOL. 105] 



