502 
NATURE 
[JANUARY I, 1914 
other naturalists of the eighteenth century exhibited 
ignorance of the nature of paradise birds is no 
parallel and no excuse. Mr. Buckland’s reference 
was to the Great bird of paradise, which, I believe, is 
not far off extinction. Mr. Emery Stark’s figures of 
200,000 birds of paradise skins obviously refer to the 
many species inhabiting Dutch New Guinea and 
western Papuasia generally. In all there are some 
eighty-one or eighty-two distinct species of paradise 
birds, many of them confined to small areas, the 
majority living—unhappily—under Dutch rule; and 
about twenty species are nearly extinct by now on 
the smaller islands owing to the ruthless proceedings 
of the Malay, Papuan, and half-caste hunters. The 
females of some species, it must be remembered, are 
beautiful enough in plumage to be shot for the feather 
trade; this is also the case with the young males. 
It is possible, also, that most of the members of this 
group are monogamous, or that, like the peacocks 
and other extravagantly beautiful birds, only the 
quite adult males are fit for breeding. However it 
may be, all trustworthy authorities are agreed that 
the numbers of the paradise birds throughout Dutch 
Papuasia have very greatly diminished during the last 
thirty vears, and that species common in Wallace’s 
day are now extinct in this or that island or forest 
area. 
The Government of the Dutch Indies has set on 
foot no efficient measures of protection—so far as | 
know, no measures at all, other than the issuing of 
licences to kill. I visited Holland two years ago to 
inquire into this matter, and was truly surprised to 
find the utter indifference with which it was regarded, 
even by Dutch zoologists; and Holland has produced 
some very great zoologists within the last fifty years. 
I deplore this mental lacuna which is, I fear, to be 
met with also among British biologists. But I am 
convinced it will disappear with’ the general spread of 
enlightenment. The same Dutchmen and Englishmen 
are exceedingly keen about the preservation of Dutch 
and British wild birds; they are simply thoughtless as 
to the rest of the world, forgetting that the new gene- 
ration of dwellers in the British and Dutch Empires 
may daily curse the memories of the rulers of to-day 
who permitted a marvellous fauna of beautiful, 
wonderful, and harmless creatures to be extirpated 
solely for the gratification of the blood-lust among 
our sportsmen or the furnishing of wares for sale to 
silly women and magpie men. 
A correspondent of The Times wrote the other day 
asking that the rose-ringed parrakeets of India might 
be handed over for destruction to the plumage trade. 
He must have been a person without a sense of beauty 
and colour-blind; for if there is, or was, one feature 
more than another that was lovely in Indian land- 
scapes and old Indian towns it was the flocks of these 
grass-green, rose-tinted, or blossom-headed parra- 
keets. ‘‘But they ravage the natives’ crops,’ he 
wrote. Well, I know India pretty well, and at one 
time spoke Hindustani sufficiently to converse with 
native landowners and peasants. I have never heard 
one such person complain seriously of the damage or 
loss done by these fluttering morsels of loveliness; but 
I have noted—as Rudyard Kipling and his father have 
noted—the many pet names in the vernacular for the 
parrakeets of India, and the native appreciation of 
their beauty. This is purely a native and a _ local 
affair. If the native of India wishes to thin out the 
parrakeets or other seed- or fruit-eating birds, let him 
do so; but do not permit it to be done for the in- 
famously inadequate purpose of decorating English- 
women’s -hats. 
I remember in 1895 some British officers in north- 
west India decided that so many wild peacocks (they 
were semi-tame) must be “a dam’ nuisance’’ to the 
NO. 2305, VOL. 92] 
| 
i 
native agriculturists. and started out to organise a 
battue. But the battue was the other way about. 
The natives of the district, losing all restraint at the 
idea of their beautiful peacocks being slain to please 
the Sahib-log and the Gora-log, turned out with long 
sticks and thoroughly whacked the shooting-party. 
This episode was one of the many signs of unrest 
in India which characterised the year 1895. In this 
instance, if not in the others (for in most cases it 
was excellent measures of sanitation which provoked 
ignorant wrath), I thoroughly sympathised with the 
natives. f 
Mr. Joseph refers to paradise-bird skins worth in 
the trade 4ol. or more, and states that these are 
eagerly sought after for scientific purposes. What 
nonsense !—unless he refers to pseudo-science.. The 
true scientific ornithologist has by now in the collec- 
tions of Britain, Italy, Germany, Holland, and France 
all the material he can possibly want for the external 
description of paradise birds. If he desires anything 
else it is in the way of the bodies of these birds. But 
even their myology, osteology, intestines—all their 
anatomy—are by now completely understood. We 
have, however, to learn much more about their life 
habits, their eggs, nests, and food. Material in such 
a quest.can only be gathered by a trained scientific. 
observer, such as from time to time is sent out by a 
learned society or a patron of learning. Scientific 
men would not go to the plumage-trading firms for 
such information, for they would not get it, or it 
would be quite untrustworthy. These firms buy their 
skins at second-hand, third-hand, fourth-hand, and 
their ignorance on the subject of ornithology is simply 
colossal. 
I want to narrow the discussion to these unanswer- 
able points. What are the legitimate uses of the 
skins or plumes of wild birds (excepting such as are 
carefully protected from diminution by rigid super- 
vision and close times for breeding) in a civilised 
community—a community civilised enough to appre- 
ciate the economic uses of birds and the extreme 
beauty of birds in a landscape? Do the bodies of the 
birds I would desire to protect from the plumage- 
hunter serve as important articles of palatable food? 
No; except it be in a few instances, so few that they 
are of no importance in the argument. Do they serve 
to keep women, especially poor women, warm? No; 
quite useless for that purpose. Admitting that feathers 
and plumes do add to the beauty of a woman’s 
costume, are we sufficiently supplied with such by 
using what we get from birds bred for the purpose 
or bred or protected for our food supply? Yes. Front 
a hundred species and varieties. In all these cireum- 
stances a woman who wants to wear a humming-bird 
or a parrot’s wing or a bird of paradise or egret 
plume must be depraved, and should not be pandered. 
to and the trade which would live by ministering to 
such tastes should be closed down without com~= 
punction. H. H. JoHNsTON. 
A Palzobotanical Institute at the Royal Botanic 
Gardens, Kew. 
More than two years ago there appeared an article 
in The Times (August 24, 1911) the title of which was 
‘“A Neglected Science: Fossil Botany and Mining.” 
The chief contents of this article can be summed up 
as an appeal for the recognition of paleobotany, and 
was indeed thus named in Nature of August 31, of 
the same year. The author of the article in The 
Times criticises ‘“‘ the official neglect of palaobotany in ~ 
this country.” It is admitted that the leadership of 
some branches of palazobotany is found in Britain, 
but this is stated to be wholly due to the zeal and, 
