Jan. 1885.] 



AND OOLOGIST. 



15 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



Dermal Preservative. 



To THE Editor of the *'0. and O." Sir: The question 

 of Dermal Preservatives is one of the moat important that 

 is presented to the Taxidermist, whether he is a profegsion- 

 al or an amateur, for upon this one item depends the insect 

 kilHnpand lasting quaUties of his worlv, and, consequently, 

 the value of his colleetions. Being of such vital impor- 

 tance to all interested in doing work or making a collection 

 that will he pennanent and not merely temporary, it would 

 seem to he advisable for taxidermists to compare notes as 

 to the results of their observations and personal exjjeri- 

 ences with different ])reservativep, for the purpose of ascer- 

 taining^ what they can look to for beet results. 



Arsenic is undoubtedly the preservative most used, and 

 among the many compounds that have appeared from time 

 to time it has stood the test best of all, and proved its 

 great value as an insecticide and preventer of decay. Arsen- 

 ica] soaps, pure dry arsenic, and arsenic and alum mixed, 

 each have their votaries and all are undoubtedly of great 

 value. 



The objection to arsenic is found in its effects upon the 

 human system, and while all taxidermists recognize its great 

 value, there are probably few who have not suffered from 

 its effects in one way or another. Owing to this fear of 

 jeopardizing one's health, any new and non-poisonous, sub- 

 stitutes are no doubt used by many (and among the many I 

 may count myself) without sufficiently considering the pos- 

 sible results. 



Mr. C. J. Maynard, a well known naturalist, has within a 

 few years introduced a secret preparation which is known 

 as " Maynard^s Dermal Preservative," for which he made 

 the following claims in 1883, when the preservative had 

 been used some two years : 1st, while being a perfect pre- 

 servative, it is not a poison ; 2d. it prevents carbonization ; 

 3d, it will remove fresh oil or old grease from feathers. 

 While these claims will more than meet the requirements 

 we are further informed (in 1884) that ''during the past year 

 this preservative has been constantly improved by adding 

 composites," and that now it is also "a disinfectant and 

 deodorizer." 



Now there can be no middle ground for him who uses 

 this compound, either he has secured a long wished for 

 boon, or else he is doomed to sorrow and disappointment. 

 Is joy or sorrow to be our lot ? Let us who have used this 

 new preparation comparenotesfairly and without prejudice, 

 and see what may be the result. 



It seems somewhat paradoxical that a compound war- 

 ranted as harmless to man, should prove fatal to a bus, and 

 why has the preparation been '•^constantiy improved" by 

 "adding composites" if it was all that was claimed for it in 

 18S3. Those claims were surely broad enough, if tenable, 

 to cover the entire ground without any improvements, and 

 by "adding composites" to a preparation already so perfect, 

 might not the efficacy of the whole be endangered ? 



Persons using this preparation must do so as a matter of 

 faith merely, for its constituents are a iterref, and all are 

 obliged to accept statements as facts without the power to 

 judge for themselves. 



If Mr. Maynard would publish his formula it seems to me 

 that, upon the hypothesis of its being all that is claimed for 

 it, he would increase the demand for it, as well as prove 

 himself a benefactor of the race. 



Many persons I know are now unwilling to use it because 

 of their uncertainty as to its desirability, and I know of 

 others who have ceased using it because they could not 

 longer afford to give it the benefit of any doubts as to its 

 efficacy. 



Mr. M. probably will not publish his formula, and it be- 

 hooves us to take action ourselves and endeavor to arrive 

 at some rational conclusion as to its claim upon our favor. 

 I began the use of this preparation some three years ago, 

 and placed the safety of my collection against my faith 

 and Jiope in the claims made for it. A short time ago my 

 attention was called to one of my specimens that was 

 " cured" with it, and I found it was being destroyed by 

 moths. Arsenic cured specimens near it were untouched, 

 and in a ten years experience with arsenic I have never lost 

 a specimen on which that preservative was used. Thinking 

 it possible tiiat proper care had not been used in applying 

 the preservative, I cut tlie specimen in pieces and found 

 that the application has been most thorough. As yet no 

 other specimen in my collection has shown signs of being 

 '* inhabited." I am aware that a sivtjUt case like mine may 

 prove nothing, but since my experience I have written to a 

 number of taxidermists on thesnbj<;ctand their replies lead 

 me to suggest a general giving in of evidence. We would 

 all prefer to use a non-poisonous preparation, but cannot 

 afford to do so blindli/ any longer. 



Mr. Maynard has informed me that he has sent large 

 quantities of his compound to the Smithsonian Institute. 

 Will some of the gentlemen who have used it there please 

 favor us with their views in relation to it ? I am informed 

 that Prof. Henshaw has expressed himself in regard to it. 

 Will he not kmdly give us all the benefit of his knowledge? 

 Will not "all who think alike act together" in this matter 

 and give us jnore liffht? With the hope that "Maynard's 

 Dermal Preservative" may prove all that is claimed for it, I 

 am, etc., Harry Merrill, Bangor, Maine. 



Dec. 15, '84. Since writing above I have found three 

 more specimens that were attacked by moths— «?; of which 

 were prepared with " Maynard's Dermal Preservative." 



DESTRUCTION OF BIRDS FOB 



NERY PURPOSES. 



Editor O. and O : I have read the lengthy article from L 

 M. McCormick in the November O. and O., very carefully two 

 or three times, and I am compelled to confess that if there 

 are any facts or arguments in it which will tend in the least 

 to show that our insectivorous and song birds are decreas- 

 ing by reason of their being slaughtered for commercial 

 (millinery) purposes, I am so extremely dull of comprehen- 

 sion I have failed to discover them. 



In the some number, in reply to Mr. Lucas, I t^aid I had 

 been able to get generalities ad nauseam. After the perusal 

 of Mr. McCormick's article, will not your readers agree that 

 in this case, at least, I am correct? He gives, not one 

 fact, not a scintilla of evidence, that let : Our insectivor- 

 ous and song birds are decreasing mtmerically at all, or 2d : 

 That if they are, it is because they are being destroyed for 

 commercial purposes. In dates he goes back to the last 

 century, but fails to tell us whether the Titmice and Wood- 

 peckers were destroyed in Saxony for millinery purposes; 

 he quotes Buffon and the Isle of Bourbon, but 1 fail to see 

 the force of the quotation, especially when we know that 

 that amiable Frenchman had the faculty of making asser- 

 tions that would not bear the light of investigation. Mr. 

 McC, rambles into the wilds of Nebraska and Dakota and 

 finds Blackbirds killed off in great numbers ; quotes Prof. 

 Jenks "sixty years ago," but neglects to tell us whether 

 the rage for "hat birds" was the cause of the destruction 

 or whether in his estimation in this year of our Lord 18S4, 

 there are too few Blackbirds. He leaps into figures with 

 a recklessness that is amazing; in Missouri, by confining 

 himself to what he is pleased to style the " main question," 

 he goes into a calculation that runs up into millions of dol- 

 lars of tax "paid to this error." Pray, ^chat error? and 

 what was the tax paid forf He does not tell us. He has 



