Correspondence, Notes, etc.



ii5



disturbed, but this does not seem to be the case, as the Australian Crested

Doves built in an undisturbed place. C. Castee-Seoane.


[It is unnatural and unusual for Doves, or other birds, to behave like

this. I11 the natural course Doves take turns on the nest, the male sitting

most of the day, and the female at night, hence it would be an impossibility

for both nests to succeed. —Ed.].



THE WILD CANARY.


Sir, —As an apology for these further notes, I may say that I otfered

(through a mutual friend) to reply in his own journal to Dr. Creswell, but

received no answer.


In reply to his Editorial remarks on “ The Wild Canary ” in the

November issue of Bird Notes may I point out that my adopting a nom de

plume was done in accordance with Dr. Creswell’s own wish, (see p. 136 of

same work, where he recommends “writers who have not previously

written before and are doubtful of their style to take a noin de plume.”)

Surely what stands good for one journal ought not to be found fault with in

another : this answer also disposes of the paragraph about the war fleet etc.

With regard to crowding out his important letter on Avian Tuberculosis, my

notes were written early in August and were in the printer’s hands before

the end of that month, whereas the Editor informs me that Dr. Creswell’s

important contribution did not reach him until Sept. 6th or 7U1, so that my

communication went in on priority.


The errors pointed out were originally looked up in Prof. Newton’s

“ Dictionary of Birds” and verified in the Library of the Zoological Society

(which Dr. Creswell, as a Fellow, is entitled to use). Although Dr. Creswell

lays the blame on his authorities they are correctly given by them, also he

might have deducted from the length of my paper, the portion taken up

by Canon Tristram’s Notes from The Ibis occupying one-third of the paper,

and which are about the best original matter that has been issued recently

on the wild bird.


Dr. Creswell carefully evades the points which I proved : (1) his

numerous mistakes and misquotations, and (2) that the wild stock does

contain green in its plumage.


Further, it reduces the period, given by him, of 500 years as the time

during which the Canary has been domesticated to about 300, as they were

personally unknown to Gesner (1555), or Aldrovanus (1610), and Willoughby

(1976) is the first of his authorities to speak of them being fairly common.


After Dr. Creswell writing that he had not seen ail)' of these works it

is curious to refer to Bird Notes, Vol. II., p. 236, where he writes, “ I have

searched all the oldest literature we have on the subject .”


These conflicting statements serve admirably to shew the value of his

remarks, and as Dr. Creswell invited criticism ( Bird Notes, Vol. IV., p. 137,



