remains is to give the organization a rich body of mutual understanding and a 

 content of cooperation. But we speak of the "M. M. C. 0." elsewhere, and will 

 not dwell upon the particulars here. 



The previous review dwelt chiefly upon three topics: The dawn of Inter- 

 nationalism; the adjustment to the victories of Conservatism; and the new sense 

 of public responsibility. We cannot do better at the outset than to note ihe 

 changes, both in fact and opinion, under these three heads. 



The cause of internationalism had a bad fright last year, and it lived for 

 months under a crushing weight of apprehension. We cannot pretend to have 

 discovered a shifting of sympathy within the oological entente; but if the move- 

 ment escaped us, the tension was, nevertheless, manifest. So, while this is not 

 the proper arena for political discussion, we would stultify our calling, alike of 

 scribe and prophet, if we failed to note how much we have at stake in the pending 

 discussion of a disarmament program. Many of us who were humiliated and 

 heart-broken over the failure of the United States to join the League of Nations, 

 are reviving under the ministrations of a new hope. Our President is calling 

 the nations to conference, and his voice is that of a matin bell. Perhaps the 

 world's salvation dawns, a greater boon than could have been secured by hastily 

 constructed machinery, or before a conviction of our dire need had struck home. 

 We must give over suspicion and plottings and isolations. Madness and ex- 

 tinction lie that way. This little fellowship of oologists already alert to the 

 advantages of international cooperation, may exert its modicum of influence 

 in shaping a world's peace, an entente cordiale of nations which shall be — what- 

 ever it will be, " Der Tag" in a new and glorious sense? That day shall cornel The 

 day when men see eye to eye; when they shall no longer mark each other's stature 

 or the color of skins, but shall read each other's souls and strike hands in fellow- 

 ship. We can do our part to bring about such a day by thinking in world terms 

 and by magnifying the opportunities of fellowship already afforded us. 



And why should we even think of denying ourselves this privilege? If 

 the birds of a township are interesting, by so much more are the birds of a foreign 

 statel If we delight in counting up the avian tale of a province, is there not ten 

 times the thrill in telling off the score of a continent? Those who have caught 

 the broad vision, if only in the realm of oology, cannot go back again to live the 

 narrow life of the home village or the home province. The world henceforth is 

 our home, and the world's bird-men, be they ruddy, brown or tawny, are our 

 brothers. 



Regarding the adjustment of oological claims to those of conservation, 

 we regret to say that open conflict has broken out. Secure in the confidence of 

 victories recently achieved, certain conservationists, over zealous, have turned 

 upon their brethren, and have given voice to angry and unjust charges. We 

 shall neither get angry in turn, nor consent to bear these jealous imputations. 

 Those who criticise without specific citations are manifestly doing so for effect, 

 not to intimidate the collectors, but to encourage their lagging fellows, and to 

 get a response when the hat goes around. We refuse to believe that the wiser, 

 more responsible leaders of the conservation movement will sanction these snarl- 

 ing criticisms, or take stock in the exaggerations of any alarmist. No cause, 

 however righteous, can afford to imperil its verdict by over-statement, nor to 

 indulge in diatribe where sober questions of fact are at issue. The serious- 

 minded collector has nothing to fear in laying his case fully before the public. 

 As a personal testimony, I may say that so far as my knowledge goes not a single 

 visitor of the thousands who have seen the Museum of Comparative Oology has 

 ever gone away unconvinced of the value and propriety of the scientific collection 

 of birds' eggs. The criticisms which have been leveled at us collectors have been 

 born of ignorance, or of prejudice established long before acquaintanceship was 

 formed, or else they have been due to excesses committed by some of the un- 

 ethicized among our own number, and whose actions we too deplore. 



And this brings the reviewer to consider again the responsibility of the 

 oological craft before the bar of public judgment. If we lay claim, as we do, 

 to a portion of the common heritage, viz., birds' eggs, it is just that we be called 



