ii8



riie folio-wing reply was sent to Mr. Pearson.


The Lorikeet referred to was a specimen of Trichoglossus ornatus — the

■Onianiented Lorikeet. A coloured plate of this species, with au article by

Dr. Simpson, appeared in the Magazine last year.


People who have had no personal experience of exhibiting sometimes

fail to tmderstand that the catalogue is made up from the entry forms, and

that these are filled up by the exhibitors themselves, so that the exhibitors

and not the managers of the Show are responsible for the omission of the

names and for the transposition of exhibits. Exhibitors, I believe, seldom

keep copies of their entry forms, although it is most important that this

:should be done when more than one entry is made in a class. In the

absence of a copy of the entry form it is almost impossible to attach the

labels to the cages in the right order.


When Dr. Simpson and I acted as Show Secretaries we made a

practice of sending (with the labels) to each exhibitor who had made more

than one entry in the same class, a list of such entries with the numbers of

the labels, so as to insure their being attached in the right order. This

involves a good deal of extra trouble, and it is almost more than can be

reasonably expected from the Secretary of a Show.


Another cause of incorrect cataloguing is that if a bird, entered for a

Show, dies or goes out of condition before the Show, the exhibitor

generally substitutes another bird, often of a different species. In order to

avoid this man}' large exhibitors do not give the names of the species on

the entry forms, and it is certainly better that there should be no name at

all than a wrong one. The Cr3'stal Palace Catalogue has alwaj-s been

■especially incorrect, because the entries have to be sent in so long before

the Show.


I have thought it worth while to explain these matters, as although

they are well understood by exhibitors the}' are often puzzling to others.


The Shania [Cittocincla tricolor) and the Dhyal Bird {Copsychus saularis)

are nearly allied but absolutely distinct species.


There was an illustrated article on the Shama by the Rev. H. D.

Astley, in the Magazine for February. The male Dhyal Bird is black and

white — somewhat like a small Magpie — it is figured in the "Royal INatural

History." I hope that before long one of our members who has kept this

•charming bird will give us an article upon it — I should be very glad to

receive such an article. The Shama is a much finer songster than the Dhyal

Bird, but I should say that the latter is a much bolder and more inquisitive

and amusing bird.


It is difficult to understand how the strange confusion of these very

different birds could have arisen, but I, believe that " Favourite Foreign

Birds" was written against time, under great pressure from the publishers.

The mistake was corrected in the second edition. Dr. Greene is not a safe

guide on questions of nomenclature, classification, and sexual and specific

differences, but this fact should not blind us to the great services he has

rendered to aviculture. His books were for a long time almost the only

avicultural literature in the English language ; he did, for many years,

more than any other man to popularise the study; and his teaching on



