4 6



Correspondence, Notes, etc.



In Saunders’ “Manual,” 2ud ed., p. 178, is a note “there was a

‘Citril Finch’ taken alive 011 Oct. 14th, (at Brighton 1886), but on examina¬

tion the bird proved to be a freely-imported South African species, Serinus

canicollis, another specimen of which has since been captured”; and as

Dr. Creswell says one of his birds was described as a “ Citril Finch ” and

was also caught at Brighton, there is a chance of his having had a specimen

of the Cape instead of the true “ Wild Canary.” Onlooker.



Sir, —Allow me to express my thanks to my anonymous friend for his

correction, the result of evidently much research.


I fully agree with him as to the importance attaching to errors in the

dates touching the appearance of books published in the 16th century, and

will draw the attention of Professor Newton [Dictionary of Birds] and my

other authorities to the matter.


But my thanks are more especially due to him for those various

quotations from Turner and others, which so effectually confirm what I

said in my article.


Researches of all kinds are particular!} 7 fascinating. Acting on a

hint kindly given to me lately, I am myself engaged in one which promises

to be of great interest to bird keepers when time and opportunity serve for

publication.


Please accept my congratulations on the volume just completed.


W. Geo. Cresweee.



“ CONSUMPTION ” IN BIRDS.


Si r,—A little more than two years ago I penned the following sen¬

tence in Bird Notes. “ Of all diseases however with which Septicaemia is

“ confounded, Tuberculosis is the most frequent, and this too in spite of the

“ fact that if even the latter exists at all in birds outside the Gallinaceae,

“ which is doubtful, it is exceedingly rare.” This I say to-day, and I have

twice challenged Mr. J. G. Mylan to demonstrate a case of tuberculosis in a

cage bird that has not been deliberately inoculated for the purpose.


After the inspired statement in Cage Birds of June 24 that he had

been “ making some experiments with the microscope in connection with

“certain statements made by him on the subject of birds contiacting such

“diseases as typhoid, consumption, and diphtheria,” and that the “result”

would be published in your July number,—after your publication of these

said results,—and after his deliberate statements made to me in letters

direct, I am justified in expecting this demonstration at his hands.


But this is not to be. Although in making such definite declarations

in both public and private, he is taking the position of a scientific investi¬

gator, and although he knows well that, if as such he is to command the

slightest attention, he is bound to offer at least some attempt at proof of



