Correspondence. iy 



Correspondence. 



To the Editorial Committee, The S.A. Ornithologist. 



Sirs, 



The following letter was written and sent to the Editors 

 of The Emu by me to be published in the April number of 

 that journal. 



I did not receive any official answer to it, but a letter from 

 a visiting ornithologist, stating the Council wished him to in- 

 form mettiat the Council did not intend publishing the letter. 

 Later I received a letter from a member of the Council stating 

 the correspondence on this subject was closed. Now, i 

 cannot see any reason why the correspondence should 

 be closed, unless it is that too much daylight is being 

 let into the unprogressive state of ornithology as expounded 

 by The Emu. I am taking these steps solely for the en- 

 lightenment of the young school of ornithology in Australia, 

 that they may move along with our leaders, the scientific and 

 progressive thinkers of the old world, for should they stand 

 still like some conservative ornithologists seem determined to 

 do then in a short time they will have a mighty lot to pick up. 

 As a renowned American ornithologist has written to me:— 

 "Were there a gathering of American ornithologists to take 

 place anywhere, and a discussion of a certain genus were to 

 come up, it would be quite out of question for a binomialist m 

 the group to make himself understood, at any rate he could 

 not comfortably keep up with the conversation." 



If all Australian ornithologists would study Mr. G. M. 



Mathews's "A List of the Birds of Australia, 1913," it will be 



seen that the author has dealt with the E.A.O.U. Check-list in 



a most masterly fashion. 



I am, etc., 



S. A. WHITE. 



To the Editors, The Emu. 

 Sirs, 



Under "Further on the E.A.O.U. Check-list," in the last 

 issue of The Emu Mr. Milligan says in his letter that he did 

 not intend to pursue the correspondence further. Perhaps 

 that would have been the wisest course, because every time 



