Correspondence , Notes, etc.



135



hibition of birds in large cages where one may observe their mode of life in

an environment made to imitate natural conditions as far as possible. For

myself, I think that both methods should be adopted where funds and space

permit. That a show of species has an interest all its own, every orni¬

thologist will admit; and that the species should be kept in separate cages

to facilitate identification may be conceded as a dictate of common sense.

But that the birds should be given cages as large as is compatible with this

purpose is also, in my opinion, a dictate of humanity.


It is not, however, possible in all cases to exhibit a duplicate series;

and where selection between the two methods has to be made, Ido not think

it can be too strongly insisted upon that the exhibition of beasts or birds

as examples of species to help naturalists in their determination is not the

primary purpose of a Zoological Gardens. That is one of the primary

purposes of a Museum, where the object can be much more easily and

satisfactorily achieved. What a Museum cannot do, with all its taxidermic

skill, is to show beasts and birds as living things, their form and colour,

their mode of progression, their response to stimuli, their display of

emotions such as rage, fear, love, and the like; in short, their behaviour and

activities under conditions representing their natural environment as far as

the limitations of artifice permit. This can only be done in a Zoological

Gardens. It is the first thing that should be aimed at as being par excel¬

lence, the province of a Zoological Gardens. Need I add that its accom¬

plishment is only conceivable in large flight aviaries, and that in small

cages it is worse than useless to attempt it ?


It is the answer to the question whether the Gardens should illustrate

the specific characters or the habits of living birds that carries the verdict

in favour of large or small cages. An ideal Zoological Gardens should

illustrate both these and other phases of ornithology; but in practice this

is not possible and a choice has to be made. Mr. Wiener, I infer, would

vote for the species method; but most lovers of birds would, I am sure,

prefer the other, both on the grounds of interest to themselves and kind¬

ness to their favourites.


This brings me to Mr. Wiener’s statements that birds are “ happier,”

longer-lived, and more interesting objects in small than in large cages. In

support of these propositions he devotes a page and a half to the consider¬

ations of the merits and faults of the large Parrots’ Aviary in the Gardens,

showing iuferentially that he regards it as a complete failure. Since, in my

opinion, his account is altogether too pessimistic and quite misleading, I

propose to answer his allegations in some detail. If it can be shown, as I

think it can, that this aviary is not the failure he tries to make out, we shall

be in a position to conclude that the case against large flight aviaries, at all

events so far as the Gardens is concerned, collapses. For, be it noted, Mr.

Wiener has no serious fault to find with our other large aviaries. From this

may be inferred his tacit admission that birds of different kinds, if



