Correspondence , Notes , etc.



203



trees, the task of identifying some interesting member of the fifty-odd

species offers itself as a fascinating game. Every species is carefully

delineated in oils upon an individual descriptive label, so that the task is

not difficult; and the result is that considerable knowledge of several

species of birds is gained. Seldom is a keeper appealed to for this infor¬

mation, and this objection to large aviaries seems nil.


My heartiest congratulations are due to Mr. Pocock and to other

members of the Avicultural Society for a vindication of the most humane

and successful way of quartering the feathered beings which we all love so

well. C. William Beebe,


Curator op Ornithology, New York Zoological Park.


Fellow of New York Academy.


AVIARIES VERSUS CAGES.


Sir, —Most of Mr. Wiener’s criticisms have already been replied to in

anticipation. To quote myself“ . . . if there should be a timid bird

or a shy feeder, its haunts are located and needs supplied. ... If plenty

of simple food be supplied, there will not be any overeating. Birds requir¬

ing exceptional food and exceptional treatment should not be kept in a

general aviary. Of course there will always be a scramble for special

delicacies—which as a ride the birds are better without.” In what way

these words are inapplicable to insectivorous birds I fail to see. Speaking

generally, mealworms are by no means a necessity for them—I referred to

mealworms as a special delicacy which as a rule the birds are better without.


Again I said:—“The principle of the aviary is good; but of course

intelligence and common sense must be applied in its construction, and to

the nature and number of the birds to be placed in each aviary. As

Mr. Wiener himself argues, birds cannot be packed together like stuffed

specimens in a glass case. Yet the more I think over his article the more

I feel that most of his troubles he brought down upon himself by errors in

this direction.” To give a pair of Pies (species not stated) an opportunity

of killing a ‘ little Dove,’or a pair of such murderous villains as Carrion

Crows a chance of slaughtering a ‘ poor young newly arrived Gull ’ does not

suggest to me (I do not know who was in fault) either intelligence or

common sense, nor to allow two birds to die from want of suitable nourish¬

ment. Mr. Wiener persists in citing such cases as these as arguments

against the aviary—but it is not the aviary that is in fault. Has Mr. Wiener

forgotten that under certain conditions even the gods are powerless? Mr.

Wiener adds that a “ crowded aviary spells disappointment and death,” but

nobody but Mr. Wiener insists on the necessity of the crowded aviary. But

even so, a crowded aviary is not the fault of the aviary; possibly he desires

surreptitiously to suggest that we ought to make the aviaries larger so that

the birds may have more space!


Mr. Wiener writes:—“Mr. Phillipps frankly says he detests cages and



