214



Correspondcyice, Notes , etc.



and, at any rate to some extent, ornithologists, were called aviculturists,

and this term, which was in this application the invention of the founders

of the Society, has become the standard name for all those who study

captive birds from a scientific standpoint, (or who are supposed to do so).

In the twelve years which have elapsed these aims of the founders of the

Society have been, to a large extent, accomplished, and what is called

scientific aviculture has acquired an assured position.


But in 1894 when we talked about science we meant the science of

ornithology, and I do not think that in those days it occurred to us that

aviculture bore any practical relationship to any other branch of science.

The sciences of avian pathology and hj'giene were scarcel}' in existence.

We had our own notions of the proper treatment of birds in health and

disease, which were founded partly on tradition, partly on the recorded

experience of various writers on birds, and partly on deductions, often

erroneous, drawn from observations of human beings and other mammals.


Avian pathology may be said to have first taken shape as a definite

science some eight or ten years ago, when Dr. R. H. Clarke published some

important discoveries in Fur and Feather as to the nature of “ bird-fever ”

or “ canary-plague ” (so-called), and its causes and possible methods of

prevention. Dr. Clarke has been engaged for many years in original patho¬

logical and physiological research, he is a collaborator with Sir Victor

Horsley, and is in the front rank of modern medical science.


Dr. Clarke, when he relinquished practical aviculture, did not further

pursue his investigations into avian pathology, but the subject was taken

up by his intimate friend Dr. W. Geo. Creswell, who has for some years

past devoted a large part of his time, and an equally large share of his

abundant skill and energy, to the solution of various problems connected

with the hygiene of captive birds. Chiefly in consequence of the work of

Dr. Creswell, we have now begun to see that aviculture, if it is to be in any

true sense scientific, must be correlated to the sciences of hygiene and

pathology as well as to that of ornithology. As I have pointed out, the

Avicnltural Society, when in its infancy, was the principal means of making

aviculture scientific on its ornithological side. Will the Society now refuse

its whole-hearted support to an effort to make our pursuit scientific on an

even more important side, that of the health, and consequent comfort and

happiness, of our birds ?


Dr. Creswell has arrived at conclusions, on various points, which are

of great interest and importance : some of these may be briefly summarized

as follows,—


1. That fresh air and aseptic conditions are of more importance to

birds than heat.


2. That avian tuberculosis is, to say the least, an extremely rare

disease among cage-birds : so rare indeed that although Dr. Creswell has

performed many hundreds of post mortem examinations of birds he has



