162 Notes and Comments. 
THE SELBY MUSEUM. 
In the same number of the ‘Museum Gazette,’ after quoting 
our statement that ‘We were sorry to see from a report of an 
address recently delivered at Selby by Dr. Hutchinson, that 
this museum is not appreciated as it ought to be;’ a writer, 
presumably Dr. Hutchinson, says ‘ This statement ts an error, 
for nothing of the kind was suggested.’ On this point, however, 
we can have no misunderstanding! Whether Dr. Hutchinson 
made this statement or not, it was certainly so reported in more 
than one of the dailies, and in another magazine, the ‘Museums 
Journal’ (Vol. VI., p. 144), an account of the same address 
appears, in which it states that Dr. Hutchinson ‘very much 
regretted that more use was not made of Selby Museum by the 
inhabitants.” Our statement, therefore, was quite correct. 
However, as we now learn that the ‘Museum Gazette’ does not 
disparage local museums, but encourages them, and considers 
that every educational museum should have its local department, 
we have little to complain of, and we feel glad that the criticisms 
previously offered have enabled us to get a better idea of the 
views of the ‘Museum Gazette’ on the local museum question 
than was previously possible. * 
THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL ORNITHOLOGICAL 
CONGRESS.+ 
This handsome book, which forms Volume XIV. of ‘ Ornis,’ 
has been edited by the Secretaries of the Congress, Dr. E. G. O. 
Hartert and Mr. J. L. Bonhote, under the direction of the 
President, Dr. R. Bowdler Sharpe. Its ‘get up’ is perfect, 
and reflects every credit upon the printers, Messrs. Witherby 
& Co. There were five sections to the Congress, dealing 
respectively with (1) Systematic Ornithology, Geological 
Distribution, Anatomy, and Paleontology; (2) Migration; 
(3) Biology, Nidification, Oology; (4) Economic Ornithology 
and Bird Protection; and (5) Aviculture. To each of these 
sections various communications were made by different 
* Since writing the above we have seen the March issue of the ‘ Museum 
‘Gazette,’ in which an article on ‘Museums and Museums’ appears. In this, 
much that appears in the February issue is repeated. We quite agree that 
it is a pity that misunderstandings should needlessly arise amongst those 
who are interested in the same pursuits, and we share with the ‘ Museum 
Gazette’ the desire to further the study of Natural History. To put the 
whole matter in a nutshell, however, the ‘Gazette’ first expressed a pre- 
ference of ‘ Educational Museums’ to ‘ Local Museums.’ We prefer ‘ Local 
Museums’ (which should also be educational) to ‘ Educational Museums,’ 
pure and simple. 
+ London, 1907. Dulau & Co., 696 pp. and plates. 
Naturalist, 
