182 



THE OOLOGIST. 



\a.Cv3i> 



thologist of standing and judgment, 

 who will vouch to the editor for the 

 accuracy of the observer." 



Doubtless such mistakes would not be 

 made with the bird in the hand. Fur- 

 thermore, classification without speci- 

 mens would be impossible, and classi- 

 fication is by no means perfect yet. 

 But to attempt to classify according to 

 the external characteristics which could 

 be differentiated, by the field glass, 

 would be folly indeed. Conditions of 

 moult, etc , would be undeterminable 

 without the specimen in hand, and sub- 

 species would be unknown. (This last 

 would not be so great an omission as 

 might at first seem.) Nidification how- 

 ever can not be studied by aid of the 

 shotgun. The little habits which 

 make the birds so interesting, can not 

 be observed from a dried skin. A 

 ispecimen, never mind how well pre- 

 pared, can not give forth those glor- 

 ious notes of melody which greet us in 

 our travels afield, nor can a set of 

 "scientifically prepared" eggs furnish 

 the thousand and one interesting antics 

 of the nestings. 



Arguments like these can be pro- 

 duced "acZ w^^miMm" by advocates of 

 both "methods" but the matter will 

 ever remain in statu quo, for the col 

 lector will collect, the opera glass man 

 will "rubber," and the camera man will 

 develop (both his negative and his 

 knowledge) and each will have his sep- 

 arate field of usefulness and ■will pro- 

 duce his separate results, and these will 

 be taken as in every other field of re- 

 search, to produce the perfect whole 

 for which we are all laboring. The real 

 thing needed in reform is that there 

 should be a discrimination between the 

 working naturalist and the fadist An 

 opera glass fadist in nature is bad. A 

 camera fadist in nature is worse; but a 

 shot-gun fadist in nature is the extreme 

 limit of uselessness and cruelty. Let us 

 then discriminate and be charitable. 

 C. C. PURDUM, M. D. 



A Large Set of the Chickadee. 



May 14, 1899, while on a ramble 

 through fields, woods and swamps, I 

 came to a small swamp and found a 

 nest cavity of the Chickadee four feet 

 up in a rotten maple stub. I put a 

 small stick in the cavity and struck 

 something soft in the bottom and de- 

 cided it was the soft lining of the nest, 

 80 I lef c it and returned a week later, 

 the 2l8t, and opened the cavity. The 

 bird was on the nest and when she left 

 the nest, I saw the finest set of the 

 Chickadee any collector ever saw; a 

 beautiful set of ten eggs, incubation 

 begun. Nest was composed of moss, 

 hair and down of the cat-tail. I have 

 collected other sets of this species just 

 as nice as far as markings are con- 

 cerned, but the number in this set 

 makts it very valuable. 



LiSPENARD S. HORTON, 



Poughkeepsie, N. N. 



Is Albinism Hereditary? 



I have often wondered if Albinism is 

 hereditary in birds, and am inclined to 

 believe it is; basing my belief on the 

 fact that last spring (1902) an almost 

 pure white Robin {Merula migiatoria) 

 appeared in Elmwood, a local ceme- 

 tery. I did not find its nest but after 

 the breeding season three more Albinos 

 developed all of which were young-of- 

 year. Now the question is are these 

 all the young of the individual first re- 

 ferred to? If so Albinism is hereditary. 

 But how is it Albinos do not become 

 more common from year to year? My 

 theory is that these individuals are al- 

 ways in demand by collectors and so 

 are kept down in number. 



A. W. Blain, Jr., 

 Detroit, Mich. 



A Large Set of Red-Tails. 



I suppose 1 shall be branded as a 

 fraud by some collectors when I say I 

 took a set of five Red-tailed Hawk this 



