139



the time arrived when we may safely and wisely open onr pages to other

living creatures besides “ foreign and British birds ” ?


There are two directions in which we might extend our borders, and

I should like to see a movement made in each of these directions—but they

are quite distinct, and the adoption of one would not necessarily' involve

the other.


First, I should like the Magazine to be open to papers on rare or

foreign Mammals, Reptiles, and Fishes : discussed, of course, from the point

of view of the keeper of living animals, and not from that of the collector

of dead specimens. I believe that this would add largely to the interest of

the Magazine, and considerably extend our circle of readers.


Secondly, I should like the ban against Canaries to be abolished.

When the Avicultural Society was founded, aviculturists were a feeble folk,

and there was a well-founded dread of an invasion by the Canary Fancy. All

that is of the past, and Canaries could now never occupy anything more than

a subordinate position among the objects to which the Society should devote

itself. But there is no reason why they should be excluded altogether, and

in my opinion their exclusion is unscientific and absurd. There is no doubt

but that the publication of a few articles on Canaries in our Magazine would

do more to extend its circulation than any other expedient. There is a great

work to be done in the Canary world—the “fancy” is honeycombed with

trickery and cruelty—there is no publication open for the discussion of

Canary topics except the fancy papers—and there must be a large number of

people who would welcome a Magazine which would treat of Canaries from

a less personal and more scientific point of view than that of our weekly

contemporaries. It has no doubt become the fashion for the aviculturist to

look down upon the canary-man : it would be well for us to consider whether

there is ail)' ground for this contempt. To begin with, keepers of British

and foreign birds have no exclusive right to the name of aviculturists, which

includes all who devote themselves to the culture of birds. On the score of

humanity, the culture of Canaries is to be preferred to that of nearly all other

species, as it does not involve the capture of wild birds. On the score of

science, there is probably scope for as much knowledge and skill in the

breeding of high-class Canaries as there is in the feeding and management

of rare foreign birds.


At all events, no harm can be done by the discussion of this question,

and I think it would be useful if the members would give expression to their

views upon it. Horatio R. Fieemer.



I am quite sure that no good would come to the Society by doing

what Mr. Fillmer suggests, not only would the published Organ degenerate

into a mere fancier’s Magazine without any pretention to a scientific status,

but it would cease to be purely Avicultural, which is one of its greatest

attractions. A fancier is in some sense an aviculturist but an aviculturist is

not necessarily a fancier. It is certain that any radical change in the

subject matter of the Magazine would result in the retirement of all the

.scientists amongst our Members. Arthur G. BuTEER



