114 Notes and Comments. 
right ; I have seen men at Scarborough shooting gulls, and 
have heard them compare notes as to the number of rings they 
have obtained.”” Thank goodness that, under present con- 
ditions, the slaughter of harmless birds on the coast has, for 
the present at any rate, been stopped! There was another 
point I mentioned in my address to the Yorkshire Naturalists’ 
Union, which your reporter did not mention. I said that a 
certain number of cases had been brought to my notice where 
birds living on clayey land had suffered cruelly through these 
rings. Mud or clay had got on to the wings and underneath, 
had hardened, and had caused wounds and sores to form, which 
had eventually caused the leg to canker and the bird to die. 
Two cases ot lapwings dying in this manner have come under 
my own notice. 1 have heard of a partridge suffering in a 
similar manner. Another case I may mention is that of a 
linnet. Some shreds of wool had caught in the ring on the 
bird’s leg. The wool then caught in a branch of gorse; the 
bird was held fast, and could not escape, the result being that 
it died a lingering death, and was found hanging head down- 
wards near its nest.’ We may add that we have seen corres- 
pondence by qualified naturalists who bear out Mr. Fortune’s 
contention. 
BIRD PHOTOGRAPHERS. 
Mr. Robinson again enters the lists, and after indulging in 
personalities and making inaccurate statements, writes :—' Mr. 
Riley Fortune is a bird photographer, and, judging by the 
frequency of his pictures in the Press, makes a living out of 
his craft. J am a bird ringer in the cause of science, and at 
my own expense, without any monetary reward. Mr. Riley 
Fortune does not figure well as a protector of rare birds, con- 
sidering the fact that he and some of his fellow bird photo- 
graphers were responsible for almost the whole of the eggs of 
the rare Sandwich Tern at Ravenglass being destroyed in one 
season, by rigging up their “ hide tents ”’ right in front of the 
colonies, thereby keeping the parents away, and allowing 
the black-headed gulls to destroy the eggs in their absence. 
This is admitted by one of the bird photographers in a letter 
to Country Life (August, 1912), in which he states that the 
gulls came and broke the eggs before his eyes, while he was 
in his “ hide-tent.’’ One colony alone, undiscovered by these 
people, hatched their eggs ; in all the others the whole hatch 
was destroyed. So serious was the outlook that in the following 
year all bird photographers were forbidden, including Mr. 
Riley Fortune. Hence, I suppose, that gentleman’s anger 
against the bird ringers, who still enjoyed the privilege.’ Mr. 
Fortune was able to show in his reply that his permission had 
not been withdrawn, and that there were other inaccuracies in 
Mr. Robinson’s letter. 
Naturalist 
