235



more strongly even to the very term “ fancy ; ” now he would persuade us

that aviculture and “the fancy” are one and the same thing, that the

refusal to study the abortions of man’s creation amounts to the refusal to

recognize certain natural species: he knows as well as anyone that this is

not a correct statement of facts, and that our pages are now open to any¬

one who cares to write an article either on the wild Canary or the Rock-

pigeon.


When an advocate is obliged to misrepresent facts to bolster up a

weak case, surely it is no longer worth while to consider it: doubtless it

would be unscientific for us to refuse au article on either of the birds above

mentioned, but it is not unscientific to refuse to include monstrosity-breed¬

ing (generally known as “ the fancy ”) into a Society founded for the serious

and scientific study of wild birds.


I deny that, the wishes of the many are subordinated to the few as

Mr. Fillmer hints ; I am sure that the majority of bird-lovets care little or

nothing about Canaries. A. G. BuTRER.


Sir, —To start a controversy with my friend Mr. Fillmer is the

last thing I should have wished for, but I think his letter calls for some

comment from me.


I am perhaps mistaken, but I feel and always have felt that the aim

of our Society should be to increase our knowledge of the habits of birds,

and to find out all we can about their wild life, by keeping them in a state

approaching, as nearly as possible, to that in which they enjoy life in a wild

state.


I dislike cages and the term “ cage-bird,” and I had hoped that one

object of our members was to discourage the keeping of birds in cages and

to encourage their culture in large aviaries. Moreover, I hoped and

thought that we were to confine our attention to the lovely natural forms

in the state in which au All-wise Providence created them, and have

nothing to do with the artificial productions of man.


If we are to open our columns to the domestic Canary, with all its

numerous and often hideous varieties, and which is nowhere to be found in

a wild state in its present form, why should we not also admit all the

domestic poultry and Pigeons ?


We have also been asked to admit mammals, reptiles, and fishes.

Personally, so long as all domesticated forms were excluded, I should have far

less objection to these than to the domestic Canary ; although I think it

would be a mistake to admit any of them. Still, supposing quadrupeds

and Canaries were admitted into our Magazine, we should then have

domesticated creatures amongst the birds, and we should have no shadow

of excuse for excluding domestic quadrupeds—dogs, cats, rabbits, and

white mice.


Surely we have a wide enough field for study if we admit only all

birds which have not undergone domestication.


Mr. Fillmer says “ this strange prejudice against a particular species

is eminently zmscientific.” No one is prejudiced against the species as it

occurs in its wild form, it is only the domesticated bird, which is as unlike

the pure wild bird as black is unlike white, that is objected to. The very

idea of opening our pages to discussions on such subjects as “ colour¬

feeding,” “crest-breeding,” &c., is to me loathsome.



