215



Correspondence , Notes, etc.



neveryetfoundaca.se. Consequently, the idea that “consumption” may

be contracted from cage-birds is a myth.


3. That the cause of death of newly imported and freshly caught

birds is in most cases septicaemia, and that this disease is the cause of death

in the case of a large proportion of all captive birds.


4. That the use of egg-food appreciably increases the risk of septi¬

caemia, especially when it is supplied to birds for the feeding of their

nestlings, which are necessarily extremely non-resistant.


5. That the use of egg-food in any form as a food for any kind of

birds is unnecessary and undesirable from more than one point of view.


6. That post mortem examination of birds is of comparatively little

value unless accompanied by microscopical investigation by a pathologist.


Many of these conclusions run counter to the views which prominent

writers on aviculture have expressed in the past, and which some of them

continue to express in the present. The time has arrived when the}' should

either be disproved, or frankly accepted.


It must be admitted that these conclusions are of the very first impor¬

tance to aviculturists, if proved. They are of much more importance than

those matters of names for which we fought twelve years ago. The great

question for us to consider is, “Are they proved?” We must remember

that they are put forward by a Doctor of Medicine who has made a special

study of the subject, and therefore have a prima facie right to attentive

consideration. If they are wrong, let them be shewn to be so by evidence

and argument.


Let us take the tuberculosis question as a test case. Dr. Creswell

has asserted that tuberculosis is a very rare disease with cage-birds, and

that the disease commonly called by that name is not tuberculosis but

septicaemia. Recent letters in the pages of a contemporary shew that

Dr. Creswell’s position on this point is considered as proved by the follow¬

ing medical men,— S. H. Snell, M.D. and B.S. (Loud.), J. Sim Wallace, D.Sc.,

M.D., George Master, M.B., B.C., and Thos. Salt, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. On

the other hand we have one medical practitioner, Mr. Mylau, who asserts

the contrary.


It is well known that Dr. Creswell and I (who am regarded as his

leading non-medical supporter), are, for different reasons, the two best-

hated men in the world of aviculture to-day. There are quite a number of

prominent aviculturists who would gladly go to considerable trouble to

prove either of us in the wrong, or to make either of us look foolish. Well,

Dr. Creswell has challenged anyone to prove him in the wrong on this

tuberculosis question, and I now venture to repeat that challenge on his

behalf.


But while I welcome evidence and argument, I protest against the sly

endeavours of “ Onlooker ” to undermine Dr. Creswell’s reputation for

accuracy by spiteful criticism of his work in other directions. This letter

is already much too long, and I cannot go into the question of the alleged



