62



am impelled to take upon myself the task of replying. I had some fifty

“birds at the show in question, and, as I was personally in attendance on

my exhibits each day from ten iu the morning until late at night, I

trust I may presume to write with at least as much authority as Dr.

Williamson, who “merely strolled in to look at the foreign birds,” and

who made “ a few brief notes, .... scattered, and written in haste.”

Early as I was, each morning, at the show, I never failed to find the

indefatigable Mr. S. Cook at work, intelligently attending to the birds

entrusted to the Society; and I am glad to take this opportunity of

tendering to him well deserved thanks, although my own birds did not

need his care.


It would occupy too much of your space to take each paragraph of

Dr. Williamson’s letter separately; but there is scarcely one sentence that

would not admit of criticism. Almost the only sentiment which may be

agreed with is the deploring of the bad light in which the birds had to be

judged and viewed: and this was to the disadvantage of the judges and

visitors, not of the birds. The Aquarium is, in this respect, about the very

worst place which could be chosen for a Bird Show. In the day-time there

is scarcely any light at all, and at night the gas bill is so economically

looked after that each jet suffices only to show where its nearest neighbour

is located. So far as the comfort of the birds may be considered, I do

not know of any show to which owners might more confidently send

their specimens. The “intolerable heat;” “noisome air, loaded with

tobacco smoke ; ” and such like expressions are, to put it kindly, exagger¬

ations due to Dr. Williamson’s evident aversion to Bird Shows as Bird

Shows.


To every one who visited the Show other inaccuracies will, in nearly

every paragraph, be apparent, and the “ written in haste ” is self-evident

throughout the whole article. I can scarcely better illustrate this than to

take, for instance, the paragraph referring to the “ Eclectus Parrot (1950),”

the number evidently a misprint for 1050. This bird was not “ looking

unwell;” was not “shrouded by a curtain;” and was not “in a bad

position.” •


With regard to the labels requesting “ that the birds should not be

fed, or at least fed only on certain food,” Dr. Williamson seems to be under

the impression that these, instead of being instructions to the Stewards,

were appeals to the public to regard the inmates of the cages as being

somewhat different from the bears and monkeys at the “Zoo,” and, therefore,

to refrain from making them spontaneous offerings of “ nuts, sponge-cake,

biscuit, apple-peel,” etc., etc., etc. Just as though birds would take such

things, even if visitors were to offer them ! Such remarks scarcely deserve

reply, especially when the writer, as a climax, soberly says that he “saw a

piece of walnut pressed into the mouth of a Swallow,” (the italics are my

own).* Henry J. Furrjames.


IS GRIT DANGEROUS TO NEWLY IMPORTED PARROTS ?


Since my letter on the above subject appeared after that of Mr.

Phillipps, and to a certain extent took up the same line of argument, I may

perhaps be permitted to explain that it was written before I had seen Mr.



* We have been obliged to make some alterations in the wording of this letter, as Mr.

Fulljames had expressed himself with more energy than the occasion appears to require.

-Ed.



