73



Sir, — I think that Mr. Smart has fallen into the common error of

supposing that, however many English names a bird may possess, it can

have but one scientific name — the truth being that in the case of many

birds the scientific names are more numerous and diverse than the English.

One set of ornithologists call the Red-headed Waxbill Estrelda ruficauda,

another set call the bird Bathilda ruficauda — everyone is entitled to use the

name which he prefers, but not to accuse others of making a mistake

because they employ the name which he rejects.


On a purely scientific point, Mr. Smart sets up Mr. Joseph Abrahams

as an authority against Dr. Bowdler Sharpe ! I don’t think Mr. Abrahams

will thank Mr. Smart for placing him in such a position ; that well-known

and highly respedted dealer is an acute and painstaking observer, and I

have no wish to minimise his services to aviculture, but I feel sure that he

has no desire to pose as an authority upon classification. I am sony that

Mr. Smart should think it necessary to speak disparagingly of the scientific

ornithologists, especially as he confesses that he himself is not a scientific

man. It is always a mistake to “ run down ” that which you do not under¬

stand. There has been in the past far too much jealousy and suspicion

between the “ practical man” and the “scientific man” — each has much

to learn from the other, and I hope that our Society may help to bring

them together.


Dr. Sharpe’s classification is based upon the study of structure, and

structure alone — no one but a morphologist (which I am not) possesses

the knowledge necessary to enable him to criticise Dr. Sharpe’s work up >n its

own ground. No doubt, if Dr. Sharpe had studied bird life as carefully as he has

studied dried skins, his conclusions would have been considerably modified.

But what we aviculturists require is not a perfect system of classification,

but a book which shall describe with great care and accuracy the plumage

of every known bird, a book which shall be found in every Public Library,

and be generally accepted as the highest authority — those requirements are

fulfilled by the British Museum Catalogue of Birds, and by no other book of

which I have any knowledge. Moreover, the nomenclature adopted in the

B.M.C. is followed by Dr. Butler in his “ Foreign Finches in Captivity,”

which will be the standard English work on small foreign cage birds for

many years to come. For these reasons I repeat that it would be well if all

aviculturists would use the scientific names adopted by the B.M.C. and

abandon the use of all others. Much confusion would thereby be saved.

But while advising the adoption of Dr. Sharpe’s nomenclature, I do not

advocate the adoption, by aviculturists, of his classification, in its entirety.


The following is a description of the female Bathilda ruficauda, which

I have extracted from the work in question — it will enable Mr. Smart to

decide for himself whether his bird is a cock or a hen. “Similar to the

male, but duller everywhere, with no rosy spots on the upper tail-coverts,

but only a subterminal rosy wdiite bar; very little crimson on the forehead

and face and scarcely any on the chin.” Dr. Butler tells me that B. ruficauda

is really a Grass-finch and not a Waxbill. Horatio R. Firrmer.



ICELAND AUKS.


Sir,- — I see Mr. Stanley Brigg asks a question, “ What are Iceland

Anks?” I have no doubt a great many of your members can answer this

question. I may say the bird is the Rotche or Little Auk, length about

eight inches, and is something like a Guillemot only half the size. While

duck shooting on Filey Brigg this last October, I saw the little fellows

several times, and the Filey fisherman look upon them as a forerunner of

hard or bad weather. They call them Iceland Auks.


Yours faithfully,


Howard Wirriams.



