16 



ORNITHOLOGIST 



[Vol. IO--N0. 1 



the beautiful, Bimple plan of all tliose who deal in these de- 

 lightful generalities of trying to astoni8h the reader with 

 the mat;nitude of his arithmetical genius and erudition, 

 forgeting the point he is endeavoring to make, and trust- 

 ing to its bring considered amply conclueivc, seems to eay : 

 '*I am Sir Oracle; 

 And when I ope my lips let no dog bark." 



Tliere is one calculation, however, which staggers me at 

 first glance, and that is to be told that the great State of 

 Illinois, rich as I had thought it to be in bird life, should 

 have but an average of '*^Art'(?j:ier acre," and that barren, 

 sandy Long Island should so teem with it that " she can 

 spare 70,001) from one villafje." I confess that this would 

 be a very taking argument if a person did not choose to ex- 

 amine it cU>sely, but I think your readers can readily sec 

 the utter absurdity of the statement without comment, 

 though they would probably like to be informed what in- 

 sectivorous birds (for no others are in discussion,) these 

 70,000 were, and might properly ask for something more 

 than unauthoritative "careful estimates" and bare state- 

 ments. 



Again, he tells us, the Potato Bug came east because 

 "the way was graded by Grouse and Quail being shipped 

 east by the car load." Did you ever hear of Grouse and 

 Quail luxuriating ou Colorado Beatles? Were the Grouse 

 and Quail killed for commercial purposes? Had you heard 

 thai the Beetles went down to Maine because the insectivor- 

 ous birds had been ruthlessly destroyed by collectors and 

 tiixiderraists ? Was the $50,000 paid in that State for Paris 

 Green the result of the work of these fellows who make such 

 large dividends in their business? And finally, have you 

 ever heard of any wild bird that had got so degenerate as to 

 eat a Potato Bug under any circumstances? 



To sum up the whole matter, Mr. McCormick's communi- 

 cation seems to be a great deal of sound and nothing more ; 

 it would be a waste of time to discuss it in detail, and I do 

 not consider the " game worth the candle," for I fail to see 

 anything in it that bears upon the question. It seems to 

 be simply a collation of assertions made by various writers 

 dating from the last century down to "sixty years ago," 

 and which have no bearing whatever upon the question un- 

 der discussion. 



The O. and O. made a statement, as I believe correctly, 

 that the various plaints which every now and then appeared 

 in the press " were purely sentimental • • * ^^d 

 that birds of prey were far more destructive than either 

 collectors or taxidermists." Mr. Lucas answered and "un- 

 hesitatingly afllrmed" to the contrary, but withholding any 

 reasons, if he had them, why he made such a statement. I 

 asked Mr. Lucas for them and he declined giving them as 

 he said I was sarcastic in my article, and as Mr. McCormick 

 says, because I "dodged responsibility." But the latter 

 takes up the battle and in doing so drops the question en- 

 tirely, and devotes a great deal of space to Uoundering 

 about in a mass of gcneralties of what was done in Europe 

 and elsewhere a century ago, dug out from authorities 

 whose only merit lies in their antiquity. So far as ad- 

 vancing even the semblance of an argument to help out his 

 friend, there is not one word. He deems my article abusive, 

 but your readers may judge as to what hin may be consid- 

 ered, especially when they bear in mind that he has taken 

 up another's battle and one in which he was not nor could 

 be interested unless as the guardian of Mr. Lucas. He in- 

 sinuates that I am in the "skin and egg collecting" busi- 

 ness, wish to hide my operations under a "scientific cloak," 

 and am thereby " shaky lest the matter be settled." Allow 

 me to say that if I am correctly informed as to our young 

 friend's age, I commenced that business some years before 

 he made his appearance on the stage of life, and with the 

 lamented Kennicott was under the guidance of probably as 



enthusiastic a lover of nature as this. country has ever pro- 

 duced. Certainly no one will say that .Tared P. Kirtland 

 would ever countenance the destruction of a bird except it 

 be for a good purpose. 



I have yet to sell or ofer for safe an 'egg, nest or skin, 

 and when Mr. McCormick insinuates that I am one of the 

 "hypocritical humbugs who rail against the promoters of 

 protection * * * to throw dust • • • 

 and to bluff ofi" close investigation of questionable transac- 

 tions," I will call your attention to the fact that it is in very 

 poor taste for any one, wlio, as both he and Mr. Lucas have, 

 exposed and offered for sale Orioles, Bluebirds, Meadow 

 Larks, Yellowbirds, Goldfinches, Sparrows and Snow 

 Buntings, to attack any one, even though it was well 

 known that he was in the business of collecting " hat birds," 

 with insinuations as to "questionable transactions," much ^ 

 less to stigmatize them as "hypocritical humbugs." For 

 my part I cannot see that there is so great a difiference as 

 to the increase or decrease of bird life whether a bird is 

 killed and the skin adorns a lady's hat, or in execrable 

 mounting, her mantel piece. For the fellow who mounts 

 for the mantel, to make wry faces at the one who mounts 

 for the hat and call him "humbug," looks as though it was" 

 very like " pot calling kettle black." 



My only excuse for occupying so much of your space is 

 that it seemed necessary to show up the fallacies of Mr, 

 McCormick's article and reply to his polite (?) insinuations. 

 I am glad to see that others are considering the question, 

 and I fully endorse the opinion of A. T. G., in your last 

 number, in relation to that pest of the fields, the house cat. 



I will try before long to give what facts I am in posses 

 siou of upon my side of the question. 



w. w. c. 



[We have taken upon ourselves to strike out some of the 

 less important parts of our correspondent's letter, partly 

 from the necessities of space, and partly because we desire 

 to restrain personalities in such discussions. We are at all 

 times anxious to encourage free discussion of questions 

 that will interest our readers. Whatever oijinions we may 

 hold upon any point, will not affect the fair treatment it is 

 our intention to give to every correspondent who has any- 

 thing to say which adds light to matters under discussion in 

 our columns. — Ed.] 



Where Does the PtruPLE Marti.v Spexd the W^inter 

 MONTHS? A valued correspondent asks us this question, ad- 

 ding " Iheardamansay that, no one could tell. I could not, 

 but don't believe his statement nevertheless." Dr. Coues 

 has an interesting note, (Birds of the Colorado Valley, p. 

 447, t'(, aeq.) in which he says that " we have yet to discover 

 where the great mass of Martins bred each year in the 

 United States, stay in winter.'' The Prague purpurea which 

 is frequently referred to as a Central and South American 

 bird, is very probably our Purple Martin. The point is one 

 worthy of observation by those in a position to give it 

 attention, 



iNmnniES. Through your cohimns I would like to ask 

 your readers,— Do birds ever play 'possum'? A, L. Park' 

 hurttt. 



Could not some one through the O. and O. tell how to re- 

 move ink numbers from eggs without hurting the shell? 

 Ammonia and oxalic acid will do in some cases, but in oth- 

 ers it softens the shell. »'. Otto Kiuemon. 



CALIFORNIAN NOTES. EKUATA. (O. AND O. IX.) 



P. 136, 2nd col. line 4, for Jan. 15, read April 5. 

 P. 144, Ist " " 34, for "Texan Kingfisher," 

 read " Belted Kingfisher, 

 {Ceryh alvyon.Y^ 

 " 44, strike out " Cuban." 

 The change we are making in mailing, will, we expect, 

 improve the condition in which the numbers are received, 

 and also insure more certain delivery. 



