3632 The Zoologist — August, 1873. 



small species of chaflfer, this insect being just now very numerous 

 about the cliffs on the sea coast. 



28th. Remarked a fine male common redstart perched for some 

 time on the telegraph-wire, and uttering a constant plaintive note, 

 which was answered by the female in some bushes by the river side. 

 I think the young must have been near also, but I did not see 

 them. I merely mention this as the common redstart is so un- 

 common in our neighbourhood. 



30lh. Saw, at a birdstufTer's, an old female and two young king- 

 fishers which had been killed on one of our rivers a few days 

 before, notwithstanding the Wild Birds Protection Act. The 

 young birds varied very little from the old one, except in being 

 smaller, and having a much shorter bill. The lesser blackbacked 

 gulls left our harbours very late, but I cannot find them breeding 

 on any part of the coast in our neighbourhood. 



John Gatcombe. 



8, Lower Durnford Street, Stonehouse, Plymouth. 

 July 3, 1873. 



Wild Birds Protection Act. 

 By the Rev. O. Pickard-Cambridge, M.A. 



If Professor Newton read my remarks on this Act (Zool. S. S. 

 3576) with sorrow, I must say I have read his reply to them with 

 surprise. Immediately after the appearance of my remarks in the 

 ' Zoologist' I received a note from Mr. Newton, substantially (in 

 fact, almost verbally) similar to the reply communicated to the 

 'Zoologist' (S. S. 3611). Perceiving from his note that Professor 

 Newton had misunderstood me to attribute the Wild Birds Pro- 

 tection Act as it was brought forth (/'. e. passed in Parliament) to 

 the authors of tlie Wild "Fowl Protection Bill, I immediately wrote 

 to him in explanation of my remarks on that head, as well as on 

 other points : my surprise is therefore naturally great to fintl that he 

 still credits me with what I fancied 1 had plainly disclaimed. I feel 

 therefore obliged to trouble you with a few words by way of 

 rejoinder on this subject. 



Few readers of my remarks (Zool. S. S. 3576) would, I should 

 have thought, have missed the distinction intended, and clearly 

 implied, between the conceivers of the Act — i. e, the authors of the 



