127



perhaps, have been to carry the process of simplification too far.

And as much may be said of the retention in this book of Tatin, or‘science’

names. The mass of technical matter with which ornithological works are

usually weighted is scarcely wanted in a book intended for the general

reader, more especially for the young. Nor was there space sufficient to

make the work at the same time a technical and a popular one: the briefest

description that could be given of the characters of genera would have

occupied thirty or forty pages.”


There is so much truth in Mr. Hudson’s remarks upon the ever fresh¬

ness of the study of bird life, that we venture to make a further extract

from the Introduction, upon this subject. “The longest history of a bird

ever written, the most abounding in facts and delightful to read, when tested

in the only sure way—namely, by close observation of its subject—is found

to be scarcely more complete or satisfactory than the briefest, which contains

only the main facts. This is because birds are not automata, but intelligent

beings. Seebohm has well said, ‘the real history of a bird is its /z/Nhistory.

The deepest interest attaches to everything that reveals the little min'd ,

however feebly it may be developed, which lies behind the feathers.’ It has

been remarked more than once that we do not rightly appreciate birds

because we do not see them well. In most cases persecution has made them

fearful of the human form ; they fly from us, and distance obscures their

delicate harmonious colouring and blurs the aerial lines on which they

are formed. When we look closely at them, we are surprised at their beauty

and the indescribable grace of their varied motions. An analogous effect

is produced by a close observation of their habits or actions, which, seen

from afar, may appear few and monotonous. Canon Atkinson, in his

‘Sketches in Natural History,’ (1S65), has a chapter about the partridge, pre¬

faced by Yarrell’s remark, that of a bird so universally known there was

little that was new to be said. While admitting the general truth of this

statement, the author goes on to say : ‘ Still, I have from time to time

observed some slight peculiarity in the partridge that I have not seen noticed

in any professed description of the bird, forming certain passages, as it were,

of its minute history.’ It is precisely this ‘minute history’ that gives so

great and enduring a fascination to the study of birds in a state of nature.

But it cannot be written, on account of the infinity of ‘passages’ contained

in it, or, in other words, of that element of mind which gives it endless

variety.”


Not the least interesting part of the book is the chapter on Structure

and Classification by Frank f£. Beddard, F.R.S.


Throughout the book aviculture is persistently ignored. There are one

or two allusions to the depredations of bird-catchers, but 110 further reference

to the practice of keeping birds in captivity. Perhaps this is not surprising,

for Mr. Hudson is one of those inconsistent people who consider it

cruel to keep even Canaries in captivity, while they do not object to the

slaughter of birds for sport or “ collecting.”



CORRESPONDENCE.


BUTBUhS.


Sir, — I have re-read with great interest the chapter on Bulbuls taken

from that very pleasant book “A Naturalist on the Prowl,” and should like

to make a remark or two on these charming birds, I cannot agree with

PI HA that their brain is small, though he truly says “ they liavte a lively and

inquiring mind.”


I have at present three Syrian Bulbuls from Mount hebanon, all of

which are very tame, especially one, which has 110 fear, and which I let out

every day at breakfast and luncheon. He flies at once to me to be fed, and

takes from my mouth crumbs ofbread and fruit, indeed, whatever he is offered.

He has no fear of strangers, and will fly to them, to their great delight, and

feed from their hand. He makes himself generally agreeable. My Bulbuls



