OOLOGIST'S EXCHANGE. 



But to proceed ! We left the Snake 

 Bird and continued on till we reached 

 the South East corner of the island, 

 where we landed, secured our boat and 

 commenced our march. While care- 

 fully treading my way through the 

 water, (we were in a marsh where the 

 water was two feet deep) I suddenly es- 

 pied a Louisiana Heron (Ardea tricolor 

 ruficollis) asleep on a log. "Ah ! ha ! " 

 thinks I, "now I've got you, Mr. 

 Heron." I advanced until within fifty 

 feet of him and then fired, and killed 

 him with a charge of dust shot. He 

 was a handsome specimen too, and well 

 worth our wet tramp after him. Pretty 

 soon I heard my friend quietly ' ' cuss- 

 ing " himself and very soon his gun 

 went off. ' ' Did you get him ?" I yelled. 

 "Get him ? no of course I didn't, you 

 don't suppose I've got any luck do 

 you ? " and then I heard him say 

 "Blank, blank, that blankety blanked, 

 long necked, tough skinned son of a 

 gun — to blankety blank." 



We were aroused soon by a flock of 

 ducks quickly passing over us. They 

 appeared to alight in a lake just to the 

 north, so spreading ourselves we care- 

 fully approached the lake. Just as we 

 had gotten to the edge of the water I in- 

 advertantly stepped upon a dry stick 

 and the first thing I knew off went the 

 ducks. Aud off went my companion's 

 gun and down came a pair of fine Pin- 

 tail ducks {Dafila acuta). It now being 

 dinner time we picked up the ducks 

 and returned to the house. 



Philadelphia, Penn., July 15, 1889. 



A Candid Statement. 



In reply to the ' ' reply " of Mr. Mattin 

 which contrary to the general run I 

 saw myself, it not having been brought 

 under my notice by my friends, I sub- 

 mit the following : 



As a number of my readers are aware, 

 Arthur E. Pettit does not control, own 

 or edit this paper. It is published by 

 a stock company, the entire manage- 

 ment of it being in the hands of a Board 

 of Directors of which I am chairman. 

 I wrote the gentleman asking him to 

 reply for this reason. That several let- 

 ters had been received up to the time of 

 my writing him in this strain. "Mr. 

 'Mattin ' does not reply to you, I sup- 

 pose what you charge him with is true 

 as sileDce means assent." I have written 



ten different parties for a definition of 

 the word true cologist and as each re- 

 ply was different I cannot declare Mr. 

 M's statement false until I know what 

 a true oologist is according to his ideas. 

 I am tempted to smile at that part of his 

 reply numbered two. If I, as chair- 

 man of the Oologist Exchange do not 

 understand my own business, how is 

 it that when the present proprietors 

 took hold of it the stock was at 78 and 

 it is now at 122 and the subscription 

 list has tripled, yes quadrupled itself 

 under its present management. I will 

 reply at the end of this to his third 

 portion. 



In reply to No. 4 would say that were 

 Annanias alive at the present time he 

 would have to yield up the Palm. The 

 sworn circulation of this paper is 1,500 

 per issue. The Ornithologist and 

 Oologist's average is 1,000 per issue, 

 and putting the circulation of the 

 following at the lowest possible limits 

 they are as follows: Loon 300, Hawk- 

 eye O. and O. 500, Semi-annual 800 

 makes a total of 4,100 which is with- 

 out doubt as exact as can be. Now 

 Mr. Mattin cannot swear that his circu- 

 lation is 2,500 per issue, without de- 

 liberately perjuring himself. In re- 

 sponse to No. 6 would say that his asser- 

 tion is untrue. 



The same may be said of No. 7 and in 

 reply to 8 would say that Mr. Mattin 

 knows well that owing to the etiquette 

 of the profession, an oologist would be 

 hooted and cried down should he make 

 a request for his money. He stands 

 secure in this matter for he knows well 

 that his offer will not be accepted for 

 above reason. Notwithstanding the ed- 

 itorials and the statement that this 

 paper has no standing, there has not 

 been a single deprecatory letter against 

 it received ; on the contrary several 

 score of approvals have been sent. I 

 would ask him to look at back numbers 

 of his paper and he will find his ninth 

 statement contradicted. 



Ten and eleven are too silly to merit 

 any attention. In regard to Mr. Davies' 

 list would say the article did not com- 

 plain of the list but of Mr. Mattin's 

 paper. Neither I nor any one else con- 

 nected with the paper have anything 

 against the List. Mr Davies' delays 

 were unavoidable if Mr. M.'s statements 

 were true and the readers of his work 

 will be well repaid by the extra matter. 

 {Continued on next page. ) 



