74 



THE OOLOGIST 



gy be directed against the prowling 

 cat and the wandering dogs, which 

 destroy more game than all the col- 

 lectors put together? 



H. H. Bailey. 

 We indorse every word of the above. 

 —Editor. 



tire list from a to z, but fear to worry 

 you with the old-fashioned ideas of 

 one of the old school who pleads guil- 

 ty to being the best friend birds have 



R. M. Barnes, 

 Lacon, 111. 

 Dear Sir: Looking over the March 

 issue of your well conducted paper at 

 my son's yesterday, carried me back 

 to my old collecting days and you may 

 gather a little wheat from the chaff 

 herein. 



You may remember I was a crank 

 on nests, considering them the most 

 distinguishing part of most sets. 

 Rough-wing Swallows' holes were al- 

 ways started thus o while Bank Swal- 

 lows were oval. The former were of 

 much coarser straw, bulkier and never 

 with feathers. Rough-winged eggs 

 have a glossy Woodpecker texture 

 shell while Banks are very brittle and 

 delicate and if incubated at all, hard 

 to make a nice set of. 



Of course I had series of some spe- 

 cies showing variation but would leave 

 it to any ordinary ornithologist to be 

 my judge as to whom was responsible 

 for the decrease in birds instead of 

 the Higher Authority who has one 

 code for himself (elastic) and another 

 for the average lover of birds (non- 

 elastic). Whereas I could plead guil- 

 ty to six sets of Lora Rails. The 

 sportsmen will shoot twenty-eight to 

 forty dozen birds a day and of course 

 this has no effect on the decrease. 

 Whereas on a trip to Florida I would 

 take one set of Wild Turkeys eggs, 

 the sportsmen would go off and shoot 

 thirteen birds, bring them in spoiled 

 as the heat was great, and throw them 

 on the garbage pile. I have seen this 

 with my own eyes and it is not hear- 

 say. Thus I might go through the en- 



had- 



-bar none. 



Hastily yours, 



H. T. Bailey. 



Birds of the Future. 

 I have read, with interest, Mr. R. P 

 Sharpless' paper, entitled "Oologists 

 of the Future," in the March number 

 of THE OOLOGIST, but I cannot 

 agree with his views where he goes to 

 such extremes. His accusation against 

 the Audubon Societies is "that they 

 have been using every means to sup- 

 press the oologists and with such suc- 

 cess that these devoted students of 

 the natural sciences among the young- 

 er men are becoming rare." He fur- 

 ther claims that "the only excuse for 

 attack is that they destroy the birds." 

 But is not THIS a sufficiently worthy 

 cause for attack? Then he says that 

 even this argument used by the Audu- 

 bon Societies is now valueless, on ac- 

 count of the fact that "birds in many 

 parts of the country are becoming so 

 numerous as to be a serious nuisance 

 and that there is now absolutely no 

 reason why the oologist should not 

 take what specimens he needs, if there 

 ever was one." As example of his 

 bird-increase claim he points to the 

 fact that in the town of West Chester 

 Crow Blackbirds are over-numerous 

 and are a distinct annoyance. He fur- 

 ther states that he has lately read in 

 the papers that Ducks were very 

 abundant in Oregon and that he has 

 seen them so in several places. 



But are not all these cases simply 

 exceptions which prove the rule? Can 

 it be that the hoards of bird-conserva- 

 tionists in this country are mistaken 

 in believing that our bird life is rapid- 

 ly diminishing? According to Mr. 

 Sharpless they are, for he says "that 



