140 



ORNITHOLOGIST 



[Vol. 9-No. 11 



Even with a tropical climate, in which to propagate her 

 birds, Trinidad could not supply the continued drain upon 

 her birds for feathers, and Kingsley mourns the rapid ap- 

 proach of the extermination which threatened the birds of 

 that island at the time of his visit. From time immemo- 

 rial also birds have been protected by popular superstition ; 

 a deserted Stork's nest or rookery meant bad luck to the 

 premises. If a Robin died in a hand, the hand would ever 

 after shake ; or if a bird's nest were wilfully destroyed the 

 wood spirits and fays would avenge them. Of course the 

 " New England school marm" has driven all such nonsense 

 out of the boy's heads, but what has she given to replace it ? 

 Civilization is the great disturber of nature; but we have 

 seen that nature can be well avenged, when the disturber 

 turns destroyerand fails to replace. " Even exchange is no 

 robbery," but what exchange does the destroyer of our 

 " mounted police"— of the insects, offer for his spoils? Il- 

 linois has, by the careful estimate of three of her ornitho- 

 logists an average bird life of three per acre. Is Long 

 Island so much, richer that she can spare 70,000 from one 

 village? Is it not true that Swallows have become very 

 scarce there? 



Shall the naturalist of the country wait to protest against 

 the killing of birds for millinery purposes until it is proved 

 that the results to the farmer will be the same as if they 

 were killed from a misunderstanding of their habits? 

 Here the birds are in danger, not from thoughtlessness or 

 misunderstanding, but from a business carried on by men 

 who have no interest in the fate of the land — a business whose 

 profits of 200 or 300 per cent all round gives promise of rap- 

 id growth, in spite of, the fact that it is carried on in defi- 

 ance of existing laws. 



While fully subscribing to the axiom that " No good nat- 

 uralist will destroy life wantonly" which " W. W. C." "as- 

 S3rts" so manfully, I will suggest that if "those who are 

 studying nature," etc., would clear their skirts of the pro- 

 fessional collectors, 4 * stand in" with the law makers, in- 

 stead of the law breakers, and help to expose those who 

 under the name of science slaughter the birds for other 

 purposes, they would find little or no difficulty in convinc- 

 ing those in authority of their own right to protection in 

 their studies. This might be hard on the hypocritical hum- 

 bugs who rail against the promoters of protection for 

 birds, only because they wish to throw dust in the eyes of 

 the public, and pose as much abused students, when the 

 truth is, they only take the position they do, to bluff off too 

 close examination of their very questionable transactions: 

 who allow "no one to deprecate more than I the killing of 

 birds for millinery purposes," but would have us believe 

 that there is " A great cry over a very little wool." 



It is not to be wondered at that our law enforcers, con- 

 fused by the blatent cry of "science" from one side, and 

 silent indifference from the true student, should lose pa- 

 tience and make all show their proofs. I think that our 

 laws are liberal enough : the only improvement that is 

 needed being some specifications as to the kind of proof to 

 be furnished by the student who wishes to avail himself of 

 the clause "Except for scientific purposes."— L. M. Mc- 

 Cormick, Washington, D. C. 



Editor O. and O.—Sir: I don't know but that you may 

 think it presumptuous for me to take up any of your space 

 in replying to the communication of Mr. Lucas in the Octo- 

 ber number in which he charges me with abuse, sarcasm 

 and lack of courtesy. I was in hopes Mr. L. would have 

 made answer to my communication as he was so ready in 

 reply to the article of your's, and I sincerely hope he is not 

 " backing out," for he made such positive, italicised asser- 

 tions that I was sure he had unquestionable facts as a basis. 

 To charge an antagonist with abuse and discourtesy is an 



old dodge in newspaper warfare, and makes the way easy 

 to get out of an untenantable position. I suppose such are 

 meant when the poet speaks of 



" Men. like horses hot at hand 



Make gallant show and promise of their mettle ; 

 But when they should endure the bloody spur 

 They fall their crests, and, like deceitful jades, 

 Sink in the trial." 

 If he is afraid his facts won't bear out his unhesitating 

 affirmations, why, then I don't know that he is to be 

 blamed fpr getting out as best he can, and look upon pleas- 

 antry as abuse or discourtesy. As to sarcasm, it does seem 

 as though his habitation is too well glazed for him to cast 

 stones, for in his article in reply to that of the O. and O. he 

 steps out of his way, leaves the subject altogether to " pick 

 up" a fancied error of the Editor, by parenthetically adding 

 (mammals ?) to that portion speaking of the fur of ani- 

 mals—and to my mind his correction(?) was somewhat 

 strained, viewed logically. I agree with him fully that " sar- 

 casm is not fact," and will go further and say neither are 

 unsupported affirmations conclusive even though backed 

 up by employment in the IT. S. National Museum. 



I am sorry he thinks my article was abusive or discour- 

 teous. I certainly did not intend it should be anything of 

 the kind. My object In answering his letter was to make 

 sure if possible of a reply and get what I have for a long 

 time tried vainly to obtain, a stmare edged presentment of 

 facts upon the destruction of song and insectivorous birds 

 for commercial purposes, taken from the position. 



Generalities, sentiment and gush I have found ad nauseam, 

 but nothing else, aud I have tried ineffectually so long, that 

 I am about discouraged. I ,am egotistical enough to think 

 that I know why there is nothing else to be had ; at any rate 

 about every one who enters the lists to champion the cause 

 seems to meet an unsurmountable obstacle when called 

 upon to drop gush and poetical license and take "frozen 

 facts" for a basis. I have interested myself not a little in 

 looking into this matter, have tried to study both sides of 

 the case impartially and without prejudice, and I have con- 

 vinced myself. When those who take the position that our 

 birds, song and insectivorous, are decreasing in numbers by 

 reason of their being killed for commercial purposes, will 

 produce some reasons why they think so, then I think I can 

 show them their error, but to undertake to confront sweep- 

 ing generalities, unsupported affirmations, or the sweet 

 sentimental gush that appears spasmodically in print, is 

 simply impossible. There is no starting point. Mr. Lucas 

 " unhesitatingly affirms" that he knows. Tell us how you 

 know! What facts are you in possession of ? We said 

 you might convince us we were wrong, but rest assured 

 you will not until you establish the fact that you are right 

 in your deductions as drawn from what is indisputable. I 

 am very sorry that Mr. Lucas should look upon my article 

 as he does. There was no intentional discourtesy, but I 

 see there is to be a lengthy reply from Mr. McCormick in 

 your next, and by the way does he not hail from the U. S. 

 National Museum ? I hope Mr. Lucas is not answering by 

 proxy. I am glad to see an interest awakened in this mat- 

 ter. It may be productive of great good ere the end 

 comes.— W. W. C. 



Making Bird Lime. Several correspondents say that 

 they make it by boiling down Linseed Oil to about one-third 

 the quantity. This should be done in the open air to avoid 

 the annoying smell, and it is well also to set the oil on fire 

 in the kettle with lighted sticks. When thick and stringy, 

 the fire must be smothered out. 



Walter Hoxie. We shall be pleased to receive notes from 

 your locality. 



