138 Correspondence , Notes, etc.


observed in this aviary of ours, and probabty no where else in the Three

Kingdoms.


It maj' be admitted, for the sake of argument, that birds can be kept

alive for as long a time in a small cage as in a large one, perhaps indeed

longer, especially if the large cage contain other inmates. The same is true

of pigs in sties or sheep in folds as compared with those allowed in the

one case to root in the woods or in the other to graze on the hills. It is

also true of the imprisoned convict as compared with the man of his own

social grade living a life of partial freedom in town or country. In pro¬

portion as ) r ou remove a living organism from the influences of the struggle

for existence and interfere with the incidence of natural selection, due

regard being had for hygiene, warmth and food, you increase the chances of

survival. But, at all events, in the case of man, you diminish the chances

of happiness.


Although I prefer to leave the much paraded question of the

“ happiness ” of birds to anthropometrists resembling the heroine in

“ Middlemarch,” who, when young, “believed in the generosity of wasps

and the honourable susceptibility of sparrows,” yet at the same time I feel

convinced that the equivalent of human felicity in beasts and birds can only

be attained by healthy indulgence in all the activities their bodies are

capable of exercising. I cannot therefore in anyway share Mr. Wiener’s

view that the inanities of human conversation and the proffer of bits of

often unpalatable food to well-fed Parrots more than compensate, or indeed

in any way compensate, for long hours of monotonous existence in

small cages and for the total deprivation of all opportunity to perform

the majority of the varied activities for which nature has fitted their

organization.


I11 conclusion I must add that Mr. Wiener’s criticisms of the Parrot’s

Aviary do not appear to me to be serious or levelled against grave objective

realities; and that his reservation of all praise must be attributed to want

of appreciation of the particular features in which this aviary appeals to

others.


Finally Mr. Wiener raises the question of providing extra shelters in

the Gulls’ Aviary. I am very strongly of opinion that artificial shelters,

be they sheds, screens, boxes, tents—what you will —are disfigurements in

aviaries where natural conditions are aimed at, and tend to destroy what¬

ever beauty or artistic merit they possess. Hence, unless a good case,

based upon practical experience or sound theory, can be made out for

the introduction of such articles of furniture, aviaries are better, because

more attractive and interesting, without them. This however is a matter of

taste—and degustibus non disputandum. In discussing Mr. Wiener’s reason

we are more in the realm of fact. In support of his view that our Gulls

need shelters, he states that the Penguins in the adjoining Seal Pond creep

into crevices at nightfall. Assuming, probably correctly, that Penguins, as



