290



Correspondence, Notes, etc.



Parrakeet, three Green Cardinals, five Red Cardinals, one Trumpeter Bull¬

finch, three Saffron Finches, besides mules and Canaries.


I have had all my birds in unlieated outdoor aviaries, and a Zosterops

has been out all the winter, and is in splendid condition. I took the

Gouldian Finches in. , M. C. Hawke.



AVICULTURE AND SCIENCE.


Sir, —It is satisfactory to me to know that my reply to Mr. Fillmer

has induced him to modify his statement on p. 214 of the Magazine, that

“ Chiefly in consequence of the work of Dr. Creswell, we have now begun

to see (the italics are mine) 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 that of ornithology.”* Now Mr. Fillmer frankly admits that we

began to see the importance, at any rate of hygiene, long before Dr. Creswell

stepped upon the stage ; but he still thinks we ought to worship this great

student for explaining to us how it is that fresh air drawn into the lungs

invigorates the body, and he asserts dogmatically that previous observers

could not explain this truth, which most intelligent youths are familiar

with, or certainly all those who have ever taken sufficient interest in

medical science to read and understand.


When I first began to keep birds, mjr “ old associates in the founda¬

tion of the Avicultural Society” were quite unknown to me; so that if Mr.

Fillmer had begun to indulge in the same study at that period, I certainly

am not in a position to state what his treatment was. I began without any

knowledge derived from books; and, until the appearance of “Cassell’s

Cage Birds ” I had to try experiments to discover the best foods upon which

to rear and keep birds. I knew a few other bird-keepers, and we used to

compare experiences (that is the we which Mr. Fillmer wishes explained).

I do not admit the possibility of a food being “ equalty good” without egg,

until a good substitute as valuable for the nourishment of birds has been

discovered.


Now Mr. Fillmer makes the mistake of resorting to discourtesj’—“in

those days we never took Dr. Butler seriously on questions of food;” and

yet in 1S99, in a review of “ Foreign Bird Keeping” I find a lament that the

important subject of food was not more fully discussed in a work of that

kind; with the appended remark that my method of feeding soft-billed

birds did not commend itself to my reviewer; if so he should have rejoiced

at my reticence.


The we of Mr. Fillmer’s uncalled for observation appears to refer

chiefly to himself and a neighbour (Mr. Septimus Perkins); indeed from his



* I frankly confess that I don’t understand the last six words of this statement: I

always thought that ornithology was the study of birds and therefore included all the

branches of bird study. A.G.B.



