48 



OKOTTHOLOGIST 



[Vol. 12-Ko. 3 



he is laboring under misappreliensions. Some of 

 these I think, with your permission, I may he able to 

 remove. He reiterates a statement marie by him on 

 a previous occasion, (O. and O., July 1886,) that "there 

 is a disposition of the members of the Union to ig- 

 nore the privileges of the young students of orni- 

 thology." I must confess that I was at first puzzled 

 to know in wliat way this had been done, or to recall 

 any evidence of such disposition. I certainly be- 

 lieve I am in a position to know the aims and pur- 

 poses of the members of the A. O. U., in relation to 

 this matter, especially of its leading members— the 

 class evidently in the mind of the writer— but I have 

 never heard such sentiments expi-essed, nor observed 

 any indication that they are entertained. Your cor- 

 respondent, however, explains himself quite fully in 

 what follows, and shows that he evidently misunder- 

 stands the facts in the case. "As the laws are now 

 worded," he says, "a person to gain a permit must 

 give bonds, and 1 know that many who are entitled 

 to a permit are debarred for that reason." Why this 

 is the case is not evident, since no money has to be 

 advanced by the applicant for a permit, or by any 

 one for him; he has merely to find among his friends 

 two persons who are willing to do him the favor of 

 becoming his bondsmen in a small sum, which, it 

 they have reason to believe that he is upright and 

 conscientious, they can have no hesitation in doing; 

 for they become liable only in case he defies the law 

 and collects or destroys birds contrary to its provis- 

 ions, that is, for other than scientific purposes. 



In proof that his charge against the A. O.U., is well 

 founded, he asks, with emphasis, "what scientific 

 body recommended such laws?" and further asks if 

 the A. O. U., does not desire "a law by which all ap- 

 plications for a permit must be signed by some sci- 

 entific gentlemen?" To these questions I frankly 

 answer, yes. Then your correspondent asks, "Who 

 are these scientific gentlemen?" To this he himself 

 makes answer, "Why! members of the A. O. U., and 

 they would have the whole thing in their control— if 

 they could." 



Now it happens that on this point I can throw light 

 by a simple statement of facts. Under the law re- 

 cently passed by the State of New York— which is es- 

 sentially the law proposed by the A. O. U., Commit- 

 tee—the American Museum of Natural History in 

 New York city is empowered to grant permits, four- 

 teen of which have been issued up to date. The 

 signers of the vouchers of tlie applicants of these 

 permits number twenty, eleven of whom are not mem- 

 bers of the A. O. U., nor even ornithologists, but they 

 ore naturalists or "scientific gentlemen." Only five 

 (out of the twenty) are active members of the A. O. 

 U. Furthermore, no applicant has been denied a 

 permit on the ground that his vouchers were not sat- 

 isfactiory. As I happen to be agent of the museum 

 in this mater of permits, and also a member of the 

 A. O. U., Committee on Bird Protection, and at the 

 same time president of the A. O. U., we should have 

 here an aggravated case of grievances on the part of 

 Amateurs against the A. O. U., if Dr. Northrup's alle- 

 gations have any just foundation. Do not the facts 

 themselves show that his charges and assumptions 

 are not only unkind, but without any real basis? For 

 I am sure that the other members of this Committee 

 would be quite as lenient in their rulings as I have 

 been. In fact I know that it would make no differ- 

 ence whatever to any of them whether the persons 

 vouching for an applicant for a permit are members 



of the A. O. U., or not, provided they are naturalists 

 of good character, even if only "amateurs" in their 

 special departments of research. 



In regard to the general question of the attitude of 

 the A. O. U., towards taxidermists even, to say noth- 

 ing of young ornithologists who collect bird skins 

 merely for their own cabinets, I would call the atten- 

 tion of Dr. Northrup and those who have his views 

 to a few paragraphs under the head of "Notes and 

 News" in the last (January) number of The Auk, 

 where is given a brief report of a discussion of this 

 subject at the last meeting of the A. O. U. 



Dr. Northrup at least implies that the system of 

 granting permits for collecting birds for scientific 

 puposes under bird protective laws originated with 

 the A. O. U. On the contrary, this system was in 

 practice in Massacliusetts long before the A.O. U. 

 was organized, and even before such an organization 

 was thought of. The power to grant permits was 

 then delegated (as now) to certain designated socie- 

 ties of natural history. One of these societies — the 

 one most active in tlie matter — at first placed it in 

 the hands of a committeee of three only two of whom 

 were ornithologists (I was one of these, and can 

 therfore speak authoritatively.) Later the granting 

 of permits was jjlaced entirely in the hands of the 

 secretary of the society, who was an eminent entomol- 

 ofjist, but in no sense an ornithologist. Applicants 

 (then as now) were obliged to furnish a testimonial 

 of tlieir fitness to be entrusted with a permit, signed 

 by a "scientific man," who might or might not be an 

 ornithologist, but could not have been a member of 

 the A. O. U., for no such body then existed. 



Finally, in view of the facts and explanations giv- 

 en above, I must claim that Mr. Montague Chamber- 

 lain's letter published in the October O. and O., and 

 to which Dr. Northrup's is a reply, fairlj' states the 

 case as between the O. and O., and the A. O. U., and 

 tliat the charges he quotes as having been made in 

 previous numbers of this journal are as he charact- 

 erizes them, not only unjust, but entirely false. 



J. A. Allen. 



American Museum Natural History, 

 New York City, Jan., 4, 1887. 



Bristol County Ornithological Club. 



The Bristol County Ornitliological Club retain the 

 same role of officers for the ensuing year, viz : Mr. 

 F. M. Merck, of Attleboro, President; Mr. Chas. F. 

 Morrison, of Ft. Lewis, Colorado, Vice-President, 

 Mr. F. W. Andros, Taunton, Mass., Secretary. The 

 executive comnittee consists of Messrs. C. H. Andros, 

 Hilton B. Held and F. H. Carpenter. During the past 

 year one active member has been admitted, and three 

 corresponding added to the list. 



The season's work has been satisfactory. Som.e of 

 the papers presented were the result of much inves- 

 tigation into tlie fauna of the county. Mr. F. W. An- 

 dros gave a very complete list of the birds, which 

 occur within its limits. 



Mr. John C. Cahoon presented a detailed paper on 

 the bird migration at Cape Cod. Mr. Carpenter's 

 remarks on his explorations in Maine were instruct- 

 ive. Mr. C. H. Andros gave an elaborate summary 

 of his season's work in the field. "Our Local Rap- 

 tores," by H. B. Reid, "Order Limicole in Bristol 

 County, by H. F. Dexter, and Faunal Changes, by F. 

 H. Carpenter, were the titles of three papers for pub- 

 lication. 



The Ornithologist and Oologist was considered 

 to be a proper medium in which to publish such pa- 

 pers as its editor may deem proper. 



Publication number 2 of the Club, is a brief paper 

 by Mr. F. H. Carpenter giving the status of the Os- 

 prey in the county, issued February 17. 



H. F. Dexter. 



