564 



NATURE 



[January 29, 1920 



sure that the director and staff of the Indian Museum 

 at Calcutta, where the collections of the I. M.S. investi- 

 gator are deposited, will give them every assistance, 

 and examine any specimens they may obtain. We 

 want to know what are the organisms concerned in 

 the production of the phosphorescence, and the physi- 

 cal conditions of the water in which they were living. 

 The organisms can be strained out of the water by 

 a silken or muslin net — or the hose turned to run 

 through a piece of either cloth — ^and preserved in 

 spirit or formic aldehyde (i part in 30 of sea- water). 

 They should be accompanied by e.xact information as 

 to position, state of weather and moon, and temperature 

 of the water; a sample of the actual water in a green 

 beer-bottle would also be useful. 



Phosphorescence so diffused as to make the sea 

 appear absolutely white is, in my experience, rare. In- 

 deed, I have seen "White Water" only on two occa- 

 sions; the first halfway between Ceylon and Minikoi, 

 on a dirty night towards the end of May, 1899 (heavy 

 weather from south-west, maximum effect about 9.30 

 p.m., dark again by 11 p.m.); the second seen from 

 Minikoi, about five weeks later, at the commence- 

 ment of the Great Monsoon (south-west), time 

 9-10 p.m. A bottled sample of the water of the first 

 showed only the same organisms as normally produce 

 "sparks," but a tow-net sample of the second was so 

 rich in the eggs, etc., of the organisms, which inhabit 

 the slopes of Minikoi, and in breeding worms that 

 normally bore into its corals, that I regarded it as 

 perhaps a seasonal breeding phenomenon. 



Waves of fire produced by myriads of sparks from 

 minute water-fleas (especially Ostracods) and Protozoa 

 are common in such tropical seas, but they merely 

 mark the wind waves, and are not the same as the 

 waves described by Capt. Palmer, which I think 

 must be due to an optical effect. Globe or lantern- 

 like effects produced by umbrella or barrel-shaped 

 jelly-fish I associate with calm weather. They are 

 most noticeable in the early part of the night, and do 

 not usually last for more than an hour or two. As 

 patches up to a few hundred yards across occur, and 

 as the jelly-fish are sometimes so abundant that they 

 can be collected in a bucket thrown overboard, the sea 

 might be described as "White Water," but I am sure 

 that this is not what the fishermen of the Indian 

 Ocean know by that name. Fish passing through 

 water highly charged with phosphorescent organisms 

 frequently execute Catherine-wheels, etc., but fish 

 themselves are often phosphorescent from bacteria 

 living up<3n their skin. J. Stanley Gardiner. 



Zoological Laboratory, The Museums, Cambridge. 



Proposals for a Plumage Bill. 



Prof. Duerden's letter in Nature of January 15 

 might by its phrasing lead to the supposition that 

 a few persons only are agitating for a novel Bill to 

 prohibit the importation of plumage. The trade has 

 been keenly opposed by all naturalists, not only in 

 Great Britain, but also in the United States, Canada, 

 Australia, and nearly every country in Europe for 

 many years. The arguments now used were all urged 

 by the trade when the Government Bill of 19 14 passed 

 its second reading in the House of Commons. 



We are told that the introduction of another Bill 

 will be " viewed with alarm in South Africa," although 

 the ostrich-feather trade is a British Colonial industry 

 carried on under totally different conditions from those 

 of the trade in wild birds' (or " fancy ") plumage. In 

 December, 1913, the hon. secretary of the Ostrich 

 Farmers' Association of South Africa, representing 

 1700 farmers, wrote to the Royal Society for 

 NO. 2622, VOL. 104] 



the Protection of Birds as follows : — " My asso- 

 ciation has from time to time taken the feeling 

 of its members on the subject-matter of the Bill 

 about to be introduced by Mr. Hobhouse, and 

 they have expressed their entire sympathy with, 

 and approval of, the Bill. . . . The attitude taken up 

 by the feather dealers in London is inexplicable to 

 my association, and you have my assurance that they 

 have not the least support from a single ostrich 

 farmer in South Africa." 



With regard to the "serious slump" said to have 

 resulted from the Anti-Plumage Bill of 1914, it may 

 readily be supposed that all such luxuries as feathers 

 v^'ould suffer a slump during the war ; but, as a matter 

 of fact, one of the chief London brokers reported in 

 1915 that, "in spite of many difficulties, a large quan- 

 tity of goods has been dealt with," and that there 

 had been " a sudden improved demand from America." 

 This demand followed the passing of the tariff clause 

 prohibiting the importation into the United States of 

 all "fancy" feathers. 



Prof. Duerden himself reasons that decrease in 

 "fancy" feathers would improve trade in ostrich 

 feathers when he argues that the aesthetic tastes we 

 have inherited from our barbarian ancestors demand 

 that we should decorate ourselves with feathers of 

 some sort. 



The argument that we must encourage a Frencli 

 industry is also well-worn. It is true that the traders 

 in Paris cried out in 1914 that the Hobhouse Bill was 

 designed to protect the ostrich feather industry of the 

 Cape at the expense of Parisian feather-dressers; but 

 the Soci^t^ d'Acclimatation de France replied: "The 

 interests of workpeople will not be affected. ... It 

 is only a very small batch of speculators that can 

 have to suffer. They are very rich." 



Prof. Duerden has " grave doubts " whether the 

 "ruthless destruction of birds" for trade can best be 

 prevented by discouraging or prohibiting that trade. 

 It is open to him to suggest a better way. The pro- 

 position that birds-of-paradise, lyre-birds, egrets, 

 herons, trogons, orioles, terns, kingfishers, and all 

 the rest of the feather-traders' victims, from albatross 

 to humming-bird, might be " farmed " after the 

 manner of the flightless ostrich, and plucked or killed 

 for the market " in conformity with the highest 

 humane demands," may be of interest to avicul- 

 turists ; it has no practical bearing on the question of 

 to-day. What science and humanitv alike demand is 

 immediate action to save the birds of the world from 

 the ruthless and stupendous slaughter on which the 

 trade now lives. L. Gardiner, 



Secretary, Royal Society for the Protection 

 of Birds. 



23 Queen Anne's Gate, S.W.i, January 20. 



The suggestion made by Prof. Duerden (Nature, 

 January 15) for special breeding of birds as an alterna- 

 tive to prohibiting imports of their plumage is un- 

 acceptable to us for several reasons, but of these I 

 need now only mention one, since this one appears to 

 us conclusive. We hold that it would be impossible 

 for the Customs to differentiate between the feathers 

 of those birds which had been "farmed " and of those 

 which had fallen victims to the ruthless plume-hunter. 

 Prof. Duerden is, perhaps, unaware that a scheme 

 similar to that which he adumbrates was advanced in 

 1914 by the Committee for the Economic Preservation 

 of Birds, and was considered by the Government of 

 the day to be unworkable. 



The idea of our desired Bill being dangerous to the 

 ostrich-farming industry has surprised us, previous 

 Plumage Bills having been warmly supported bv the 



