234



The horticulturist can help the botanist, the apiarist can help the

entomologist—but we are not told that the chief aim of horticulturists

should be to win the approval of botanists, or of bee-keepers to receive the

applause of entomologists. The horticulturist cultvates plants because of

their beaut} 7 or their utility, or both. The aviculturist cultivates birds for the

same reasons, and also because their companionship gives him pleasure.

There are a few who keep birds partly with a view to studying and

recording their habits, and thus adding to our knowledge of ornithology—

but such persons are to such an extent ornithologists and not aviculturists.

Let us try to “clear our minds of cant.” We are not, as a Society, scientists;

we do not, as a Society, keep birds with any direct scientific object. Then,

in the name of common sense, let us not pretend to be what we are not.


I fear that I am wandering from my subject, and will return to the

consideration of Mr. Seth-Smith’s remarks.


As to advertising the Magazine. This has been tried before, and it

was proved by experience that advertisements in weekly papers did not pa} 7 .

If the Society embarks on a policy of advertising, it will be found that each

new member, so gained, will cost many times the amount of his annual

subscription. I differ from Mr. Seth-Smith on this point also, that I do not

believe in the existence of the “ great many aviculturists who have never

heard of the Magazine.” I believe, on the contrary, that the number of

persons sufficiently interested in the subjects of our Magazine to become

regular subscribers, and who have never heard of it, is very small.


Mr. Seth-Smith ignores the existence of a powerful “ fancy” element

in connection with foreign and British birds, especially the latter. This

element has never been any trouble to the Society, and there is no reason

why the Canary “fancy” should be more difficult to deal with. My

personal experience is that Canary “ fanciers ” are neither better nOr worse

than “ fanciers ” of British and foreign birds.


One of my chief motives in urging the admission of Canaries, is that

an arena for the discussion of Canary topics may be provided, which shall

be free from the objectionable features of the fancy journals. Our Society

lias done much to elevate the pursuit of the culture of foreign and British

birds, and I hold that it is now our duty to try to do the same for the

pursuit of the culture of Canaries.


I feel sure that there is no risk of the Magazine being turned into “ a

common fancy paper,” so long as it is under the control of the present

Editor and Executive Committee; and to admit such a possibility seems

scarcely a compliment to them. H. R. Fielmer.



Sir, — Mr. F'illmer at one time seemed to appreciate the fact that the

study of living birds was the truest science : he now says that the Society

is not a scientific one, and he evidently desires that it should not be recog¬

nized as such : unhappily for Mr. Fillmer’s wishes it is recognized as such

already, and the contents of its organ are regularly noted in the “Zoological

Record ”—a work which deals only with publications of recognized scientific

interest.


Mr. Fillmers present attitude is to me quite incomprehensible.

Time was when none of our members was more anxious than he that the

Society should be based upon strictly scientific lines; no member objected



