160 
ORNITHOLOGIST 

[Vol. 11-No. 10 

The Sphingidae are, as far as my present experi- 
ence goes, not numerous, but at certain seasons of 
the year Noctuids occur in large numbers, and 
prominent among them is the moth of the cotton 
caterpillar. Of the large Bonbycids I have de- 
tected as yet only the Luna. 

CORRESPONDENCE. 
The Destruction of Birds for Millin- 
ery Purposes. 
THE EDITOR oF THE O. AND O. Sir:—I have read all 
that has appeared on this subject in the O. and O. so far, 
and finding that although the killing of birds for scientific 
and pseudo-scientific purposes seems to be regarded as al- 
lowable and justifiable, yet the destruction of the same 
creatures for millinery purposes is regarded with horror 
and universally condemned. I venture to lay before your 
readers a few facts tending to show that it is not quite so 
wicked to kill a bird to adorn ahat as many seem to think. 
Now the slaughter of birds is condemned on two grounds. 
Ist, ‘‘That birds are not created in vain,” and so on, which 
needs no answer beyond that of Dr. Northrup in the July 
O.andO. 2nd. That the slaughter of birds will lead to an 
increase in the numbers of the insect tribes and mankind 
will suffer. Now when we come to consider the matter we 
find that those who take this view of the matter seem to 
consider all insects as noxious, and birds as the only check 
_ on them ; but it must always be borne in mind that many 
insects prey on others either in the perfect or larval state, 
such insects as the Ichneumon flies, Dragon flies, Ground 
beetles, Antlions and Lady-bugs being well known instan- 
ces of this fact, and as far as my experience goes, birds 
will as soon eat useful insects as noxious ones. The Bee- 
martin for instance, a well known insectivorous bird, often 
Causes great annoyance to bee-keepers in this section, in 
fact Ihave seen more than a dozen sitting on a fence in 
front of arow of hives and now and again flying off to 
catch the bees as they flew to and fro from the hives. 
Again it must be remembered that most of the birds 
killed for millinery purposes are not specially useful to 
man, those most in demand being Blue Jay, Cedarbird, 
Goldfinch, Yellowhammer, Redwing and other Blackbirds. 
Now the first three are noted as birds of non-insectivorous 
habits, the Flicker feeds chiefly on ants and berries, while 
the Redwing and other Blackbirds do much damage to 
newly sown oats and wheat in the South. (It may be as 
well to note here that the Bobolink, so highly prized for 
its song in the North, does great damage in the Fall to the 
Southern ricefields, and it would certainly be hard on the 
rice growers to protect these birds in their breeding haunts 
as they are more numerous than is wanted now.) 
The birds which do the most good as insect eaters here 
are the Field and Chipping Sparrows, neither of which is in 
demand for millinery purposes. The above facts are but a 
few out of many which have come under my notice, and 
the consideration of which has brought me to the conclu- 
sion that there is no very urgent reason why birds should 
not be killed for millinery as well as for scientific purposes, 
as no amount of sentimentalism can make me see that 
killing a bird for millinery purposes does more harm than 
killing one for scientific purposes, or even for sport—its 
only one bird the less in any case.—C. S. Brimley, Raleigh, 
N. C. 
The A. O. U. and the Amateurs. 
THE EDITOR ORNITHOLOGIST AND OdLoaIsT. Sir:—I 
cannot think that the O. and O., which during these many 
years has been a champion for truth and fair play is now to 
become a vehicle for misrepresentation and injustice. My 
friendliness toward the magazine for “Auld lang syne,” as 
well as the hope I entertain for its future usefulness will 
not permit me to think that, and I, therefore, ask fora 
little space to endeavor to correct an error into which you, 
Mr. Editor, and some of your correspondents appear to 
have been to, regarding the attitude of the A. O. U. and 
the Committee on Bird Protection toward the Amateur Or- 
nithologists. 
Being a member of the A. O. U. and of that committee, 
it will probably be admitted that 1 amin a position to 
know something of their policy and their acts; and as I 
have been called ‘‘an amateur of a rather pronounced type,” 
and as the majority of my friends are amateurs, I am not 
likely to be prejudiced against them, but fair play compels 
me to state that nothing has been done by the Union nor 
by any of its committees to warrant some of the remarks 
that have been published in your magazine. The editorial 
statement, for example, that ‘‘there is a tendency among 
the associated scientists to arrange themselves in opposi- 
tion against amateurs,” and, again, ‘‘the amateur has 
come under the ban of displeasure” is positively false. 
And equally false is the statement of your correspondent 
Philip Laurent, in the June issue, that ‘‘ young odlogists 
have received all the blame for the so-called scarcity of 
certain native birds,” as 1s also that of W. De Forrest Nor- 
thrup, M. D., in the July issue, that ‘‘ there is a disposition 
of the members of the Union to ignore the privileges of 
the young students of ornithology.” 
At the founding of the A. O. U. in New York in 1883 
both Dr. Coues and Dr. Merriam spoke most eloquently in 
praise of the work done by the amateur ornithologists of 
America, and strongly urged that every encouragement be 
accorded to the young students, for, said they, from the 
ranks of the amateurs of to-day must come the scientists 
of the future, and the A. O. U., in the interests of the 
country and of ornithology, should see that they are af- 
forded all possible assistance in their studies. There was 
not any dissent from these sentiments, and the policy then 
outlined by these gentlemen has never been departed from. 
The Committee on the Bird Protection instead of ignor- 
ing the right of the amateurs have placed them on the 
same footing as professional scientists, and have in many 
instances stretched the meaning of the phrase “ the inter- 
ests of science” to assist collectors, rather than act with 
severe strictness. I have been informed by a _ taxi- 
dermist that a member of the committee offered to assist 
him in procuring a permit, yet I have read some of his ad- 
vertisements which were scarely consistent with *‘ the in- 
terest of science” as generally interpreted. I know that 
another member of the committee obtained a permit fora 
young collector who had taken so little interest in the sci- 
ence that he had never even heard of The Auk. 
Such being examples of the attitude of the Union to- 
ward the amateurs it has been rather exasperating to one 
who understood the true state of the matter to read the 
contrary statements and unfair insinuations which have 
been furnished to the subscribers of the O. and O. of late, 
and I hope that in future, you will find some better use for 
your columns, or if you must print such stuff, to fill your 
pages or to gratify some of your patrons, you will please 
not publish it in the name of the amateurs, for they want 
none of it.—Montague Chamberlain, St. John, N. B. 
