ORNITHOLOGIST 
[Vol. 11-No. 11 



CORRESPONDENCE. 
Amateur and A. O. U. 

Mr. Epiror.—It seems to me that your correspondent, 
Mr. Chamberlain, has fairly boiled over with virtuous in- 
dignation, andin so doing has run a muck. That the O. 
and O. has become a vehicle for injustice because it sympa- 
thizes with those who have opinions as their own, and 
through its columns admits their expressions, even if they 
vary from those of the Grand Moguls, is certainly a com- 
pliment to you, rather than a serious charge. That the 
gentleman is an amateur is very marked and we are delight- 
ed to find him, being such, a member of the A. O. U., as 
we are to know also that other members of the same order 
are Taxidermists, and we are not so unfair as to believe it 
will cause them to lose caste. 
That the pursuits of amateur naturalists have come under 
a ban to a considerable extent (in the east) from the results 
of the action of the A. O. U., I believe to be true; perhaps 
not intentionally. It is easy to start a rolling stone, but 
quite another thing to guide it. 
““The committee on bird protection instead of ignoring 
the rights of the amateur have placed them on the same 
footing as the professional scientists.” Quite proper. Does 
the gentleman think it would have been wise to have taken 
any other course, and will he inform us at what age the 
committee recommend an amateur should arrive at to be 
elegible to the permit system? If I mistake not this last 
question is quite important to a large number. Also, what 
assistance have collectors, except in isolated cases been 
afforded. 
I don’t quite understand the point about stretching the 
meaning** the interests of science.” The New York law 
which was recently passed, and we think was somewhat 
brought about by the influence of the body, appears to have 
had its meaning well stretched, and we are certainly very 
grateful for the suggestions from them that. brought into 
effect the present law in Massachusetts—whereby they ad- 
vise no one under sixteen can have a permit and no one over 
can obtain one (practically.) 
The gentleman as a clincher to his illustrations of mag- 
nanimity, Says a member of the A. O. U. offered to assist a 
taxidermist to procure a permit, ‘even one whose adver- 
tisement was scarcely consistent with science.” Does not 
this point savor just a little of what we complain? To the 
member who offered his assistance, it is a compliment, but 
to one who would question the honor of the recipient it 
may not be. Permits, the gentleman must be aware of, are 
grants to collect under restrictions—which the holder is by 
honor bound to observe. 
Did the taxidermist’s advertisement show a lack of honor 
or responsibility ? 
I believe Mr. Editor I represent a larger number than the 
A. O. U. when I say we demand that there shall be no dis- 
crimination in granting permits. When the grant is in- 
fringed upon, then is the time to shut down. 
The question has been asked ‘‘where do you draw the 
line between {the amateur and the scientist?” If Mr. 
Chamberlain comes forward and claims to be one, and as 
such thinks that he has a better right to represent them 
than you, Mr. Editor, then I feel assured the question will 
never be answered. 
The saddest part of all is the reference to amateurs who 
never heard of the Auk! Science, have mercy on the ama- 
teur who hears not of the Awk, and common sense, on 
both amateur and scientist who do not take the O. and O, 
—Massachusetts Taxidermist. 
Bird Destruction. 
EDITOR ORNITHOLOGIST AND OdLOOIstT.—Sir; I have 
taken much pleasure in reading the interesting articles on 
Destruction of Birds. Every week I devote one day, ora 
part of one, to the birds. As I am living in the country, 
in a good position for observing, scarcely a day passes but 
what I can make some note of our feathered friends. Iam 
fully satisfied that, around this locality, the Catbirds and 
Cowbirds do more toward the extermination of many small 
birds than all the men, boys and cats. 
Several years ago my attention was called to the large 
number of Chipping Sparrow’s nests that were empty and 
overturned. For every nest with young of this kind, I find 
the average is a little more than ten that have been de- 
spoiled. This is the work of Catbirds, for I have seen 
them robbing the nests many times. 
The Wood Thrush, Red-eyed and Warbling Vireos also 
suffer greatly from the depredations of this arch fiend. We 
all know the parasitic habits of the Cowbird. The birds 
nesting here in whose nests they deposit their eggs, are In- 
digo Bunting, Grass and Purple Finches, Song Sparrow, 
Golden-crowned Thrush, Vireos, Warblers, Least Fly- 
catcher, Pewee—especially when the nest is in the woods. 
Iu the last New York quotations for game Blackbirds are 
offered for 15¢ to 20c per dozen, and Reed-birds or Bobo- 
links at $1 per dozen. A year ago last spring, when I was 
in Warrington, Fla., I saw large numbers of Robins and 
Cedar birds killed for food. The hunters seemed to con- 
sider them legitimate game, and found a ready sale for 
them with the officers at the Fort and Navy Yard. During 
the winter and early spring these birds are in large flocks, 
and very often adozen are killed by one or two shots. 
It will be well for amateur collectors in this state, (of 
course the scientist will not be troubled) to look up the 
new game laws which were passed in May by our imbecile 
Legislature. Sections 4 and5 of these laws were probably 
framed by some escaped lunatic. 
Last year a Robin’s nest containing eggs was brought to 
me by one of my cousins. He found it in his hop yard, in 
a slight depression of the ground and about a foot from a 
hop pole. This spring my attention was called to another 
Robin’s nest, with eggs, on the ground at the foot of a 
small apple tree. I have heard of two others on the ground 
this year, but did not see them.—D. D. Stone. 
Mr. H. R. Taylor, Alameda, Cal., desires us to state that 
he will be unable to consider any further exchanges this 
season. 
CorRECTION.—October issue of O. and O., page 146, sec- 
ond column, 20th line from foot of page, ‘‘ Summer and 
winter” should read “summer visitor.” 
ee 
In Mr. Thomas H. Jackson’s interesting and valuable 
article on the Worm-eating Warbler, (Helminthotherus 
vermivorus,) in the October number of THE ORNITHOLOGIST 
AND OOLOGIST, a vexatious typographical error occurred in 
the last line of his paper; where he is made to say ‘the 
usual nest complement is four eggs,’ whereas it should 
read: “the usual nest complement is jive eggs.” 
It should also be stated that in recording the measure- 
ments of this species Mr. Jackson gave the width first in 
every instance, and then the length. 
oe Se ees Be 
The following contributors will please accept our ac- 
knowledgements for articles received: Harry G. Parker, 
J. W. Preston, N. S. Goss, Henry Hules, T. D. Perry, 
Walter Hoxie, R. F. Stevens, C. H. Price. 

