munication signed by Miss L. Gardiner, the secretary, under date of November 

 9, 1920, read as follows, verbatim et literatim: 



"May we beg your attention to the first article — "Egg-Shells" — in the 

 accompanying number of "Bird Notes and News," and at the same time express 

 the earnest hope of the Council of this Society that the matter may be brought 

 before your Members, and that they may be induced to assist us in our efforts to 

 preserve Birdlife in place of encouraging the aspirations of the Santa Barbara 

 Musuem of Geology. [Sic] 



"The danger to our rarer species through the present craze for egg- collect- 

 ing is extremely serious. Our Watchers Committee has to employ numerous 

 Watchers to guard breeding places up and down the country from the efforts of 

 collectors to secure, by hook or by crook, clutches of rare eggs. 



"The Curator of the American Musuem [sic] of Natural History (New 

 York) writes to us: T am glad to learn that Mr. Dawson has not succeeded in 

 securing the co-operation of English Ornithologists. His following in this 

 country, outside California, is very limited'. ' 



"I am, dear Madam, 

 Yours faithfully, 



(Signed) L. Gardiner." 



We did not suppose that our good friend Dr. F. A. Lucas, the Director of 

 the American "Musuem" of Natural History, had been heaving any rocks at the 

 "Santa Barbara Musuem of Geology" [sic] while our back wa turned, but in 

 order to be particularly sure, we wrote him, and received the following: 

 "My dear Mr. Dawson: 



I do not know which Curator of the American Museum of Natural History 

 wrote the derogatory remarks in regard to the Museum of Oology, but it was not 

 the Director, who hopes that all is going well with you. Certainly your list of 

 members shows that the Museum is in a flourishing condition." 



We have not had the pleasure of reading the article referred to by Miss 

 Gardiner, but we trust that in this Brother Pycraft has fully realized the immed- 

 iate objects which he set out to attain. It is comparatively easy, of course, to 

 mislead a group of sentimental women and through them to delude the youth 

 of the land, but it is hardly a task for red-blooded men. We wonder if this 

 gentleman is a quite normal product of, say, oocleptiphobia? 



As a humble exponent alike of the causes of conservation and research, it 

 affords us no satisfaction whatever to see an alleged champion of protectionism 

 make absurb claims which he cannot support, or indulge in extravagant state- 

 ments which, when challenged, will only weaken the cause he represents. Sensi- 

 ble protectionists, and there are such, know that this institution is a bulwark of 

 conservation. They know that our affairs are conscientiously administered, 

 and that we have the good of the bird-world no less than that of science at heart. 



The challenge which this self-constituted champion of the protectionist 

 faith has issued is, however, a more fundamental one than has yet appeared. In 

 straining at the oological gnat, Rabbi Pycraft has swallowed a camel of licensed 

 bird carnage before which the peculations of egg-collectors pale into insignificance. 

 In doing this he has undermined the foundations of his own craft — pied his 

 craft, as it were — without deceiving such of the public as are able to discriminate. 

 Mr. Pycraft is an avian anatomist. The exercise of his profession requires the 

 sacrifice of certain numbers of living birds, annually, in the name of Science. It is 

 an honored profession, that of scientific bird-carver, and the Professor has served 

 it with distinction. It is exceedingly important for us to know the intimate 

 details of avian anatomy, just as it is important to compare the plumages of 

 birds. To achieve these ends, it is necessary to secure large numbers of speci- 

 mens. So great is the need of scientific collections of bird skins that very con- 

 siderable tolls must, on occasion, be exacted, and some real hardship has, in 

 isolated instances, been inflicted upon the bird world. We do not complain of 

 this, although it is increasingly clear that such destruction in the name of science 



15 



