155



CORRESPONDENCE.



“AUTHORITIES” AND THEIR CRITICS.


Sir,- — Y our contributor the Rev. C. D. Farrar, speaks somewhat

sneeringly of the opinions of others, and though he is much to be con¬

gratulated on his success, the conditions under which it was obtained are

so near those of nature as to be totall}' different from such as are open to

the common run of aviculturists, for whom the opinions he refers to were

probably expressed.


Will he try placing a pair of Budgerigars, perhaps the amateur’s

favourite bird, in an enclosure, say eight feet square, (a very ordinary sized

aviary for those despised persons to have, who cannot or will not afford one

which encloses a whole garden,) with a bush of any shrub he likes to name,

except possibly elder ? All the birds he mentions are either soft-billed birds,

or tiny finches, and even self-styled authorities (where and when did they

style themselves, I wonder ?) know that such birds as these are not, as a

rule, very mischievous, although in a small aviary the shrubs and bushes

would soon become so dirty as to be an eyesore, and “incompatible”

for that reason. If the Kings and Turquoisiues have been put in

the aviary at Micklefield ReCtory, large as it is, they may probably

effeCt a little damage. And will he read carefully the most interesting

article of Mr. R. Phillipps on the “Nesting of the Rosj’-faced Love Bird,”

in the same issue of the Magazine as his own article ? This may give him

an insight into the destructive powers of certain birds (for Agapomis

roseicolLis is not the only member of his family kept in aviaries—though he

is rare, the Red-face is not) which might help him to understand why

amateurs, starting small aviaries or bird-rooms, have been advised not to

fill them with shrubs.


Further, birds almost in a state of nature, as Mr. Farrar’s seem to be,

can obtain a variety of food for themselves which might counteract the

evil effects of a too liberal supply of mealworms. But in a state of cap¬

tivity, as they are generally kept, the same birds would certainly suffer

from over-stimulation.


Margarei’ WlREIAMS.



Sir,—I think that the Rev. C. D. Farrar is a little too sweeping in

his remarks. If it be a disputable statement to make that “ birds and

trees are not compatible,” his own remark that “ birds do not eat shrubs ”

is even more open to criticism. It all depends upon the kind of birds. That

many foreign species are very destructive to shrubs is well known to all

experienced aviculturists, so well known indeed that I do not care to take

up space by proving it. As to British birds, Mr. J. H. Verrall -writes to

me, “ Let Mr. Farrar put in his aviary a pair of Redpolls and a Bullfinch

— I do not care how large the aviary may be—with these inmates he will

think and write differently. The only shrub that I could get to live and

increase was Butcher’s Broom (Ruscus aculeatus). Elders, ivy, and grass

I had to renew occasionally. Mine was a large aviary, and never had

many birds in it, as birds will not breed successfully if there are many

inmates.” Horatio R. Firrmer.



