raising, and our treatment of birds will compare favorably with the average human 

 treatment of hens. 



If this explanation is not as satisfying as it is candid, I trust that our 

 critic will honor the Museum of Comparative Oology by an early visit, and will 

 satisfy herself at first hands. 



Respectfully, 



William Leon Dawson, Director. 



WORLD ADVERTISING FOR THE MUSEUM OF 

 COMPARATIVE OOLOGY 



Wherein will be discovered more meat than the title promises. 



We had suspected at the outset that there was a good deal of dynamite 

 packed away in the word "Cooperation." A cooperative museum on a world- 

 wide scale is, now that you think of it, a virtually untried idea. Of course many 

 large museums have interested themselves in fields correspondingly large, and 

 have had representatives, paid or volunteer, in many parts of the earth. But a 

 deliberate effort to enlist world-wide support in the upbuilding of a museum of 

 natural science whose treasures should belong to the scientific world, is a new 

 thing, and a movement fraught with the pleasantest consequences. At least we 

 who believe in the values of oological study think so. It is natural enough, then, 

 that others who are wedded to the old order of thinking, or who are committed to 

 institutions of fixed traditions, should differ from us, or should even seek to 

 discredit our policies. There have been several criticisms launched against the 

 Museum of Comparative Oology during the part year, some guarded and courte- 

 ous, others explicit and denunciatory. Perhaps the most notable of many 

 strictures was that made by "The Times" of London in an unsigned "leader", 

 or as we in America would say, editorial, under date of July 15, 1920. Coming 

 from so high a source, it was, naturally, provocative of attention; and having the 

 seeming sanction of authority, its accusations have been widely echoed by the 

 provincial press. So far as we can judge, the publication of the article entitled 

 "A New Threat to Bird Life," and presumed to have been written by W. P. 

 Pycraft, of the British Museum, has had only two marked results. It has secured 

 for the little Museum of Santa Barbara a degree of publicity which money could 

 not have paid for. This publicity has been of a most helpful nature, for it has 

 brought our claims to the attention of collectors all over the world. Men whom 

 we never heard of before, and whom in the nature of the case, we could not have 

 discovered by any direct method of approach, have written in to ask what they 

 could do to further our cause. As a result, we have added many strong names 

 to our growing list of Members; for of course no competent oologist will be 

 daunted by a specious show of authority, nor has any one of the craft been misled 

 by arguments so utterly at variance with known facts. Our prettiest thanks, 

 therefore, are due, and are hereby tendered to Brother Pycraft, if it were he, and 

 to the editorial staff of the London "Times" for this helpful act of cooperation. 



On the other hand, it is unquestionably true that this and similar utter- 

 ances, notably the one bearing W. P. Pycraft's signature, and which appeared 

 in the "Illustrated London News," of September 4, 1920, have done something 

 to mislead the judgment of laymen who have the cause of conservation at heart, 

 and to excite the hostility of such as care to be "agin something," and who rush 

 off, baying, in the direction of the pointed finger. W 7 hy Mr. Pycraft or his 

 confreres should wish to divert the energies of the grand conservational fox- 

 chase by starting a rabbit-hunt on the side, we do not pretend to know. But 

 one thing is certain, this rabbit will not run. 



We take pleasure in printing herewith the text of the "Times Leader" : 



"A NEW THREAT TO BIRDS" 



''The foundation at Santa Barbara, California, of a 'World Museum of 

 Birds' Eggs" must excite misgivings in the minds of bird lovers. These will not 



