233



think with Dr. Butler and others, that the proposed change would work

disastrously for the Society. I should have written earlier, but have been

laid up the whole of this year and am still unable to attend to business.


W. S. Page.



Note —The writer of this letter wishes it to be known, that it was

written before he had seen the July No. of the Magazine. Editor.



Sir, —At the risk of becoming tedious on this subject, I venture to

comment on Mr. Seth-Smith’s foot-note to my last letter. He says,—“ The


admission of Canaries.would cause all our most scientific members


to leave the Society in disgust; whereas our chief aim should be to make

our paper more worthy of their support.” Some time ago Dr. Butler gave

expression to similar views.


Personally, I give our “scientific members ” credit for more sense. I

do not believe that the changes which I have suggested would lead to their

resignation—for this strange prejudice against a particular species is

eminently zzwscientific. But even if they did resign, their loss would not

be insuperable. Their number is very small, and their activity on behalf of

the Society (with a few notable exceptions) by no means conspicuous. It

seems to me that a tendency is developing to subordinate the Society to the

views of a minute minority. I protest against Mr. Seth-Smith’s state¬

ment that our chief aim should be to make our Magazine more worthy of

the support of the scientists (the word is abominable English—but I

suppose it must be used). Our aim should be nothing of the sort—it should

be to promote aviculture, and to give the members advice and assistance in

the pursuit of their hobby. The Societ} r is not a scientific Society, and the

great majority of the members know little of science and care less. By

playing at being a scientific body we shall only make ourselves ridiculous,

and neglect our proper work.


I would not be misunderstood. I heartily appreciate the assistance

which has been rendered to the Society by one or two scientific orni¬

thologists, and I would cordially welcome their co-operation in the future.

But I object to the interests of the general body of members being

subordinated to the (supposed) tastes and prejudicies of a small number.


At the time when the Avicultural Society was founded, there was a

tendency on the part of some avicultural writers to belittle the work of

scientific ornithologists, to invent eccentric systems of classification, and

to make friendly relations between scientists and aviculturists almost

impossible. Our Society has altered all that. The pendulum has now

swung far in the opposite direction, and we are threatened by a very

different but equally dangerous tendency. We are now told that our

“ chief aim ” should be to win the approval of the scientists.


If this is in future to be the aim of the Society, it will, I am convinced,

rapidly grow out of touch with nine-tenths of its present supporters.

Aviculturists will not submit to be treated as the humble followers of the

ornithologists. Aviculture is, in a sense, a branch of ornithology, but it is

not an inferior or dependent branch. There is a real danger of confusing

aviculture and ornithology, but the two things are essentially distinct and

different.



