346 Correspondence.


FRESH AIR FOR CAGE BIRDS.


Sir, — 111 criticising the methods adopted by the Zoological Society

of London of keeping certain of the birds in the collection at the Gardens,

I thought that I might have done so without having thrown at my head

several brickbats by the hands of one of the officials, and also without

having the honour done me of an article in our magazine written

(apparently) on myself. It is true I have for a great many years made birds

so much a part of my existence, that I may possibly have become one, but

certainly without being aware of it ! and it would seem to be permissible to

criticise a Society which in a manner belongs to the public, and of which I

have been a Fellow for a goodly number of years, without such an

onslaught ! I am told that I have "indulged in one or two gibes, which are

perhaps intended to be funny and not unfriendly," but which " are wholly

inexcusable withal " ; that my opinion " is worth very little attention

because it is founded on assumptions of the flimsiest kind," and that I

"should probably have seen" the Superintendent's points had I "been less

intent on proclaiming the superiority of my own methods over those

practised in the Zoological Gardens."


I am not quite sure whether all this is intended " to be funny, and

not unfriendly ?"


When I wrote about the Sugar Birds (in the July magazine) not

needing glass cases, being as yet uustuffed, I certainly wrote seriously, and

there was no idea of either unfriendliness or the contrary, as I merely

wished to impress the fact that caged as they were, they were kept in an

extremely unnatural condition, and moreover distinctly showed the effects


of it.


Nor had I any idea of "proclaiming the superiority of my own

methods," for I was trying to support the methods of someone rather more

important than myself, namely Dame Nature ! On her opinion are founded

my flimsiest of assumptions ! Some years ago, people would have shrieked

with dismay had they been told that consumptive patients with hacking

coughs and failing lungs, must if they wished to be cured, sit out all day

with the snow lying round them, and sleep all night with window-sashes

removed. Now they know better.


In conclusion, I merely intended in my former letter to support a very

excellent principle that birds, like everything else, need " a proper

percentage of oxygen," which is only to be found in a truly unadulterated

and inodorous condition as Nature gives it us, and that is most certainly not

in a glass-case within a heated "conservatory!"


Nor did I for one moment intend to imply that no artificial heat or

protection from cold and damp is needed in certain cases, or at certain

times. Cela va sans dire ! I rather anticipate an indignant letter from one

of the officials of the L.C.C., because I was impertinent enough in that same

former article to disparage the soot-begrimed air of the Metropolis.


Hubert D. Asti^ey.



Printer's Error. In Mr. Pocock's letter in our last number, page

312, line 22, for " logically domesticated conclusion " read " logically

demonstrated conclusion."



