15



I would, therefore, exclude all accidental visitors which have not been met

with tolerably frequently.


1. Allowing the widest possible margin, on the off-chance of a

species having been overlooked, I would not permit an3’ bird to be

exhibited in the British classes which had not been known to occur in

Great Britain and Ireland at least five times.


If Howard Saunders’ list were to be taken as a guide, we should have

to admit species upon the show-bench in the British classes which the

author of the list does not himself consider to be British birds.


2. I would not admit aii}^ bird as British, solely on the ground that

specimens had been shot or caught in the British Isles; but would exclude

all of those which might resonably be believed to have been liberated, or

to have escaped from captivity': as examples I would exclude the Pine

Grosbeak in spite of the twenty-five or more recorded occurrences (twenty-

four of which are already discredited ; the birds having been probably

liberated). I would also certainly exclude the Scarlet Rose-finch, as being

a largely imported bird, and one not likely to interest any but an enthusi¬

astic aviculturalist, after losing its rosy colour in captivity. It has been

suggested to me that the birds obtained were not in that bright adult

plumage which would render them likely to have been imported; this is

exactly what I should have expected, though I do not admit that only

brightly coloured birds are imported.


3. I am not at all sure that it would not be best for judges at shows

to exclude all accidental visitors, restricting the term “ British ” to resident

species and regular immigrants. This would greatly simplify matters, and

save a lot of discussion.


I see no reason for admitting certain birds known to have been

imported, simply because a specimen of the exhibited species was once

shot on our shores, and excluding imported Goldfinches because the

particular variety has not been recorded as British.*


A. G. Butrer.



I am disappointed that I have not received more letters upon this

most interesting subject, as the point is one of great importance, and there

seems to be an opportunity for our Society to do a very useful work. After

carefully considering the two foregoing letters, and further correspondence

with both Dr. Butler and Mr. Bonhote, it appears to me that we could not

do better than accept Mr. Howard Saunders’ list for general purposes,

rejecting, however, those rare and doubtful visitors the English names of

which he prints in italics (there are nearly one hundred of these). But I

think that for show purposes it would be better for the Society to prepare

a list of its own, embracing only the orders Passeres, Pic aria’, and Columbcc,

and omitting all species which are so rarely found in this country that the

presumption would be heavily against the British origin of an exhibited

specimen.


This is, of course, merely my personal opinion, and I hope that the

members will now take the matter up and express their views freely. The

subject will then be brought before the Council for their decision.


Horatio R. Firrmer.



* My Kentish-bred Goldfinches have frequently been mistaken for Russian birds.—A. G. B*



