358 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVI. No. 925 



English statesmen whose mind was attuned 

 to science. In 1899 he arranged for a con- 

 vention of the great powers interested in 

 Africa to consider the preservation of what 

 were curiously described as the "Wild 

 Animals, Birds and Fish" of that conti- 

 nent. The convention, which did most im- 

 portant pioneer work, included amongst 

 its members another president of this as- 

 sociation, Sir Ray Lankester, whom we hold 

 in high honor in this section as the living 

 zoologist who has taken the widest interest 

 in every branch of zoology. But it was con- 

 fined in its scope to creatures of economic 

 or of sporting value. And from that time 

 on the central authorities of the great pow- 

 ers and the local administrators, particu- 

 larly in the case of tropical possessions, 

 seem to have been influenced in the framing 

 of their rules and regulations chiefly by 

 the idea of preserving valuable game ani- 

 mals. Defining the number of each kind 

 of game that can be killed, charging com- 

 paratively high sums for shooting permits, 

 and the establishment of temporary or 

 permanent reserved tracts in which the 

 game may recuperate, have been the prin- 

 cipal methods selected. On these lines, 

 narrow although they are, much valuable 

 work has been done, and the parts of the 

 world where unrestricted shooting is still 

 possible are rapidly being limited. I may 

 take the proposed new Game Act of our 

 Indian Empire, which has recently been 

 explained, and to a certain extent criti- 

 cized, in the Proceedings of the Zoological 

 Society of London, by Mr. E. P. Stebbing, 

 an enlightened sportsman-naturalist, as an 

 example of the efforts that are being made 

 in this direction, and of their limitations. 

 The act is to apply to all India, but 

 much initiative is left to local governments 

 as to the definition of the important words 

 "game" and "large animal." The act, 

 however, declares what the words are to 



mean in the absence of such local defini- 

 tions, and it is a fair assumption that lo- 

 cal interpretations will not depart widely 

 from the lead given by the central author- 

 ity. Game is to include the following in 

 their wild state : Pigeons, sandgrouse, pea- 

 fowl, jungle-fowl, pheasants, partridges, 

 quail, spurfowl, florican and their congen- 

 ers; geese, ducks and their congeners; 

 woodcock and snipe. So much for birds. 

 Mammals include hares and "large ani- 

 mals" defined as "all kinds of rhinoceros, 

 buffalo, bison, oxen; all kinds of sheep, 

 goats, antelopes and their congeners; all 

 kinds of gazelle and deer." 



The act does not affect the pursuit, cap- 

 ture or killing of game by non-commis- 

 sioned officers or soldiers on whose behalf 

 regulations have been made, or of any ani- 

 mal for which a reward may be claimed 

 from government, of any large animal in 

 self-defence, or of any large animal by a 

 cultivator or his servants, whose crops it is 

 injuring. Nor does it affect anything done 

 under license for possessing arms and am- 

 munition to protect crops, or for destroy- 

 ing dangerous animals, under the Indian 

 Arms Act. Then follow prohibitory pro- 

 visions all of which refer to the killing or 

 to the sale or possession of game or fish, 

 and provisions as to licenses for sportsmen, 

 the sums to be paid for which are merely 

 nominal, but which carry restrictions as to 

 the number of head that may be killed. I 

 need not enter upon detailed criticism as 

 to the vagueness of this act from the zo- 

 ological point of view, or as to the very 

 large loopholes which its provisions leave 

 to civil and military sportsmen ; these have 

 been excellently set forth by Mr. Stebbing, 

 who has full knowledge of the special con- 

 ditions which exist in India. What I de- 

 sire to point out is that it conceives of ani- 

 mals as game rather than as animals, and 

 that it does not even contemplate the possi- 



