Fifth, that the eggs be accompanied by a record, technically called data, setting 

 forth the name of the collector, the date when taken, the exact locality where taken, 

 a description of the nest, especially with regard to its immediate setting, and, if pos- 

 sible, a little reference to the behavior of the parent bird. 



Sixth, that the eggs be accompanied, if possible, by the nest, most carefully col- 

 lected. This last point is, of course, optional, but its observance enhances the value of 

 the eggs from two to ten times, even where no such allowance is made in the practice 

 of exchange. For suggestions regarding nest collection, see the preceding issue, 

 Vol. I, Nos. 1 and 2, of the Journal, pages 26-29. 



A RECOMMENDED MARKING SYSTEM. 



A review of the marking systems in vogue in the identification of birds' eggs is 

 beyond the scope of this paper. There are many such, some of excellent merit in 

 themselves, and others reflecting the individuality of the originator in such a charming 

 fashion that we should not wish to dispute their merits, but the situation regarding 

 unmarked, or imperfectly marked, or indistinguishably marked, eggs is so trying that 

 the writer cannot forbear to inveigh against it, and in doing so to present a system 

 which commends itself to him as being at once simple, adequate, and. comprehensive. 



If eggs were pictures, finished upon one side only, we should inscribe lull data 

 upon the Dacks and be gloriously content. But eggs have no backs and we hesitate 

 to mar their picture suriace with too much of our own effusion. The stern require- 

 ment of giving the art of nature precedence here, dictates a modest simplicity and this 

 wise dictate is supplemented in the case ot smaller eggs by the lack of physical space 

 and by the danger of breakage. The less one "monkeys" with the suriace of Kinglets' 

 eggs, or with tne fragile turquoise ol the Purple Finch's egg, the better for science, 

 identification, therefore, absolute identification, is the sole requirement in marking a 

 bird's egg. 



But neither is this so simple as some, especially our English friends, appear to 

 suppose, it is not enough to inscribe an egg "A" or "it" or "1/4." This may do for 

 private purposes, but "there are others.' Ihere are other collectors whose minds run 

 in the same narrow or personal channels, and when "A" irom Smith's collection meets 

 "A" from Jones's take, all in the drawers ot Robinson, who is to decide which is 

 which? An ideal identification mark is one that will identify anywhere, at any time, 

 under all circumstances. The Director of the Museum of Comparative Oology speaks 

 with deep emotion on this point, tor within the past three years he has handled no 

 less than a thousand eggs which bore the illuminating (?) legend "1/4." We have 

 accumulated at times a dozen sets ot the same species, every egg of which bore the 

 amazing distinction "1/4." Now these dear people who marked their eggs in this 

 over-simple fashion, never supposed that anybody else had thought of marking a set 

 of eggs "1/4," or if they did, they never supposed that their eggs would ever pass out 

 of their hands, and, of course, having only one set, "1/4," of that particular bird them- 

 selves, they were content. 



in marking eggs it is obviously desirable to record (a) the number of eggs in 

 the set, (b) the date ol taking, or at least such a portion oi it as will serve to identify 

 the place of the egg in a collected series (however recorded), and (c) the identity of 

 the species, it to this could be added some mark identifying the collector, the pur- 

 poses of exchange would be better served. 



In view of the commendable and almost universal habit of keeping field notes, 

 •together with full records ot all nests found, it is sufficient for personal requirements 

 to inscribe upon the egg a serial number relerable to such a note-book, or to records 

 kept on file, if this can be counterchecked by a date reference, the serial number 

 may be kept within bounds, and the allocation may be very much more easily deter- 

 mined. We secure this result at the M. C. O. by having each individual collector 

 (save "the Chief") designated by an initial, and by starting a series for each collector 

 each year. Collector Robert Canterbury, therefore, whose assigned initial is "R," 

 writes his takes as Rl, R2, etc. A set of five eggs of the Cassin Purple Finch taken 



in the season of 1919 will stand R^/^ , This is the field mark carefully applied 



and permanently retained. To this is added, in the work room, the A. O. U. reference 

 number, which is 518. In order that this reference number may not be confused with 

 the serial number, we enclose it in a circle or cartouche. Every egg in the set is so 

 marked, and the possibility of confusion, even in the largest world series, is practi- 

 cally nil. 



We do not claim that this is the only way of solving the problem. Indeed, it is 

 probably a distinct advantage to have diversity of method, as well as of chirography, 

 in exchange. But we do claim that our marking system is simple, convenient, and 

 adequate. Moreover, it is not copyrighted. 



Page thirty 



