282



Our thanks are also due to all those who have so kindly -

presented original coloured plates for publication, without which

we should not have been able to issue any plates at all.


Finally, we would tender our best thanks to all the officers

of the Society and Executive Committee, who have devoted so

much time and attention to conducting the affairs of the Society,

in a way which has, we trust, been satisfactory to the members.



( Signed)


Hubert D. Asteey.


J. Lewis Bonhote.

a. G. Buteer.


O. F. Cressweee-

Russeee Humphrys.


E. G. B. Meade-Waedo.



R. Phielipps.


John Sargeant.


D. Seth-Smith.

George C. Swailes.

R. A. Todd.



CORRESPONDENCE.



AVICULTURE AND “THE FANCY.”


Sir, —My friend Mr. Fillmer calls upon me to prove my words, in

that I say :—“ Now lie would persuade us that aviculture and ‘ the fancy ’

are one and the same thing,” and he hints that in making such a statement

I am misrepresenting facts.


If I had been able to discover any other explanation of Mr. Fillmer’s

observations, I should have refrained from making the above statement;

but I always imagined that Mr. Fillmer understood the meaning of the

term ‘ fancy ’ ; therefore I could discover no side path by which he might

escape from the interpretation which must be given to his remarks on

p. 234 of the Magazine. He says: —


“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 per¬

sonal experience is that Canary ‘ fanciers ’ are neither better nor worse than

‘fanciers’ of British and foreign birds.”


Furthermore, Mr. Fillmer hints that to ignore fancy breeds of the

Canary is unscientific, implying that by so doing we are ignoring a species :

he might as well tell a dressmaker that she showed ignorance because she

did not waste her time over fancy work.


The study of living species of birds is a well-defined branch of

Ornithology, and is necessary to a thorough knowledge of birds : if carried

out with a view to the acquisition of knowledge, it is as much (perhaps

more so) a branch of Natural Science, as the stud} 7 of cabinet birdskius :

it certainly teaches more facts about the birds themselves : this study has

been called ‘ Aviculture’ and should in no wise be confounded with what is

known as ‘ the fancy.’



