VOL. XV.] LETTERS. 219 



Sirs, — I agree most thoroughly with Mr. Blyth's opinion as expressed 

 in his letter in British Birds that " to restrict the scope to a few species 

 would tend to make it unpopular and defeat the object to which we 

 are striving to obtain." Mr. Witherby's note at the foot of Mr. 

 Blyth's letter disposes of the question of expense, which to me would 

 seem to be the only good reason for curtailment of the ringing scheme. 

 Anyone interested in the scheme will not grudge the time they can 

 devote to it, and in many cases " some unforeseen and most interesting 

 record " will justify his trouble. To speak for myself, if I concentrated 

 on say. Lapwings and Song Thrushes, I do not think that I would ring 

 any more of them than I do, possibly fewer, as I find some of them 

 when looking for other birds. 



James Bartholomew. 

 Glenorchard, Torrance, Nr. Glasgow. 



Sirs, — I quite agree with Mr. R. O. Blyth that the popularity of the 

 " Marking Scheme " would be greatly decreased if we were to confine 

 our labours entirely to a few species : but I do think that if, while 

 continuing " promiscuous " marking, we were invited to pay special 

 attention to certain species, ringers would fall in with the suggestion. 

 Such birds might be underlined in the list giving the sizes of rings, or 

 perhaps printed on the back. I have on several occasions thought of 

 sending you a list of birds most easily got at in my neighbourhood and 

 asking you to mark any on which "fepecial concentration was desired, 

 but have hesitated to bother you in the matter. I should like to say 

 that I have derived the very greatest interest and enjoyment from the 

 "Marking Scheme," and hope thatit will continue for many years, more 

 or less along its present lines. J. F. Thomas. 



The Vicarage, Laugharne, S. Wales, Jan. 6th, 1922. 



Sirs, — As one who has taken part annually in the British Birds 

 Ringing Scheme since its inception in 1909, I should advocate 

 promiscuous ringing at the discretion of the ringer. The unexpected 

 always happens and one can never tell what valuable result may turn 

 up from a. single ring or from the consecutive ringing of a family of 

 nestlings. At the same time let us concentrate as far as possible on 

 certain species. I have specially concentrated on the Swallow with 

 the result of a return of a ring from Natal, and proof that the same 

 Swallows or some of them return year after year to the same nest. 



To Mr. Blyth's suggestion as to filling up the Schedules in strict 

 numerical order I would add that the rings should be carefully used 

 in numerical order to save time, and to obviate the necessity of noting 

 the number of each ring as it is put on the leg of the bird. My system 

 is to arrange each packet of 20 rings in numerical order on a 4.V inch 

 wire nail, and then place a piece of cork at the sharp end of the nail 

 to prevent the rings falling off. The rings are then available for 

 instant use one after another, and it is only necessary to note the 

 number of the first ring used. In the case of nestlings partly iiedged 

 it is important that the ringing should be done as quickly as possible, 

 otherwise the young birds become restless and may fall out of the nest. 



John R. B. Masefield. 

 Rosehill, Cheadle, Staffordshire, 16th Jan. 1922. 



Sirs, — I think that Mr. Blyth in his letter in the January issue 

 (pp. 190-192) has put forward very clearly the case of those who are 



